— where 126 burials have been discovered until now — is 3,800 years old. The elaborate burials, which included underground chambers, decorated legged coffins and rice in pots buried with the bodies, belong to an indigenous warrior tribe which inhabited the region, according to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
Excavations in Sanauli, 68 km from Delhi in UP’s Baghpat district, started first in 2005 and resumed in 2018, paving the way for discovery of horse-drawn chariots, burials, four-legged wooden coffins, pottery, a copper antenna sword, war shields.
Coffin dug up by the ASI excavation tem at Sanauli site in Baghpat
ASI joint director S K Manjul, who led the excavations at Sanauli, told TOI that carbon dating has now confirmed that the burials date back to 1900 BC. “Between 2005 and 2006, 116 burials were found while 10 more were discovered in the last two years, making it India’s largest known necropolis.” The burial pits had legged coffins along with systematically arranged vases, bowls and pots. One of the coffins was decorated with eight anthropomorphic figures.
A recent report submitted by the Birbal Sahni Institute of Paleosciences in Lucknow to the ASI had said that there are two C-14 (carbon dating) dates -- 3815 and 3500, with a margin of error of 130 years -- for the Sanauli site. It added, "Carbon dating marks this site as an earliest history of a warrior tribe in the Indian subcontinent (sic)."
While the Deccan College, Pune, and a lab in Hyderabad conducted DNA tests of the human remains, samples were also sent to the Lucknow institute. Scientific techniques such as
and ground penetrating radar survey were used while drones and magnetometers were also deployed.
The burials bear similarity to Vedic rituals, said officials. “What is startling is the impressions of cloth found on bodies that suggests purification of bodies similar to what we practice in Hindu religion,” said Manjul.
The joint director added that three chariots found at the site “have a fixed axle linked by a long pole to the small yoke” and were run by a pair of animals. “The size and shape of the chariots indicate they were pulled by horses. The axle, chassis and wheels show similarities to contemporary chariots,” he said.
Chariot dug up at Sanauli site in Bahgpat by the ASI team
Upinder Kaur, who teaches history at Ashoka University and was earlier in DU, said that the discovery of elaborate burials and remains of chariots was “dramatic and unique”. Talking to TOI, she said, “Just how this evidence fits into the cultural jigsaw puzzle of the 2nd millennium BC drawn from texts and archaeology is something that has to be carefully examined. I am looking forward to reading the detailed report of the Sanauli excavations.”
Historian B R Mani, who oversaw excavations in Sanauli in 2005, said that the site should be looked at "as an interaction of a period of practices of Ganga Yamuna Doab and Indus Valley cultures."
S K Manjul, Director of Institute of Archaeology, ASI found the chariots buried with dead bodies in Sanauli, Uttar Pradesh (Source: Twitter)
The discovery of three pre-Iron Age chariots in the present-day Western Uttar Pradesh's Baghpat district in June 2018 had electrified the historians and the archaeologists alike.
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) stumbled upon the chariots, found inside burial pits at Sanauli, around 75 km from Delhi.
The site was earlier excavated in the years 2003-04 and 2005-06, revealing a necropolis. It is the largest known burial site in India.
The present excavations led by S K Manjul, Director of Institute of Archaeology, ASI found the chariots buried with dead bodies.
The chariots discovered have two wheels fixed on an axle that was linked by a long pole to the yoke of a pair of animals. A super structure was attached to the axle consist of a platform protected by side-screens and a high dashboard.
The wheels were found solid in nature, without any spokes, and studded with triangular pieces of copper.
According to a TOIreport, carbon dating has now confirmed that the burials date back to 1900 BC, making the chariots 3,800 years old.
In this article, we will examine the implications of Sanauli findings.
OCP and Harappan culture in western UP
In a paper published in the Indian Journal of Archaeology, Vijay Kumar notes that the pottery found at the Sanauli site is of Ochre Coloured Pottery (OCP) culture.
The OCP is a 4000 BC to 2000 BC Bronze Age culture of the Indo-Gangetic plain. It was a contemporary neighbour of the Sindhu-Saraswati civilisation.
“No Harappan pottery or any other pottery except OCP was found from the graveyard of Sinauli. The grave in question belongs to the OCP people who were late contemporaries of Harappans”.
A scene from the excavated site at Sanauli (Source: @LiveHIndia/Twitter)
Kumar disputes the popular notion that the OCP is a degenerate form of the mature Harappan culture. He argues, instead, that OCP is an independent ceramic tradition different from mature Harappan pottery and eastern chalcolithic and Neolithic ceramic traditions.
Kumar notes that the OCP culture had a “local beginning” that would go back to 9,000-10,000 BC.
“..Had it not been so this whole area would have yielded the Neolithic/ early Chalcolithic potteries from east (corded-ware tradition) or from west (Qili-gul-mohammed/Mehrgarh)".
The OCP culture rubs shoulders with corded-ware tradition in the east, and in the west, it rubs shoulders with Harappans, writes Kumar.
Vijay Kumar notes admixture of mature Harappan shapes with the OCP in the western region of the Indo-Gangetic plain.
“The material found from excavations in western UP shows potsherds with Harappan script. It indicates that between 2500 BC and 2000 BC, the people of Indus valley and Upper Ganga valley were using common script”
Kumar also notes that the OCP weapons can be seen all over India.
“It appears that they were importing copper and finished copper objects from all over India”.
“They imported copper from Himalayan zone, Rajasthan, Central India and Eastern India. They also imported ready-made vessels, weapons and other artefacts made of copper..from Harappans”
Reportedly, the burials at Sanauli bear similarity to Vedic rituals. Anthropomorphic figures on coffin indicate religious belief, and the gold, copper anthropomorphic figure associated with Vedic gods are also found.
“What is startling is the impressions of cloth found on bodies that suggests purification of bodies similar to what we practice in Hindu religion,” said Manjul.
Peepal-horned headdresses wearing deities on the Sanauli grave (Source: @Dhvamsaka/Twitter)
Were these chariots driven by horses?
“The size and shape of the chariots indicate they were pulled by horses. The axle, chassis and wheels show similarities to the contemporary chariots,” Manjul said.
Kumar refers to the rock paintings of Chitrakoot. He says that the antennae sword found in Sanauli shows that the OCP people were inspired by the Mesolithic harpoons shown in one of the rock paintings of Chitrakoot.
“It appears to be the precursor of barbed harpoons of Chalcolithic OCP culture of Gangetic valley. These copper hoard weapons were used in the Gangetic plains between 3000 BC to 1700 BC by the inhabitants of the Ganga valley”.
The rock paintings at the Chitrakoot show some foot soldiers and horse riders wielding harpoons.
“This clearly indicates that these horse riders and foot soldiers can be associated with the people of OCP culture. The horse riders wielding harpoons indicate that OCP people were using horse for their war machinery,” says Kumar.
The weapons recovered from the Sanauli site also match with those drawn in these cave paintings.
A chitrakoot cave painting shows horses and warriors with weapons (Source: Kumar)
Kumar further states that it is a wrong assumption that the horse in India only came from Central Asia.
He says that while the western India might have received horses from Central Asia, the eastern India - the region of the OCP culture - might have gotten the horses from Tibet. He gives the example of Riwoche pony which is an ancient breed of horse belonging to Tibet.
He gives the following reasons behind this hypothesis:
The shortest path from Tibet to India is through the gorges of Trans-Himalayan Rivers and different passes. This route is roughly 150 km long
The Himalayan tribes were a link between the Tibet and Gangetic plains, archaeological and historical evidence shows
There was a regular trade between northern India and Himalayan/ Trans-Himalayan region for copper, copper artefacts and other goods
The carbon dating has shown the chariots to be from 1900 BC. Other finds show that the OCP people were using the copper hoard battle axes, harpoons and antennae swords.
According to Kumar, the rock paintings of Chitrakoot reveal that Vindhyan area, south of river Yamuna was invaded by the horse-riding, copper-hoarding OCP people. This might have happened around 2000 BC. He states that it appears that the proto-historic North India was dominated by these people.
He also notes that the chariots buried in Sanauli are “horse driven light chariots used in wars, sports and game”, and therefore, reinforce this conclusion. He also noted that the chariots were light and seems to be made for carrying two persons.
How this affects the Aryan Invasion theory
Historians who support the Aryan invasion theory claim that the horse was brought in from the central Asia by the invading Aryan army around 1500 to 1000 BC.
Allegedly, the horse-pulled chariots gave the Aryans an edge over the “Dravidians” with bullock carts, and the former conquered the north Indian plains, pushing the latter to the south of the peninsula.
Even with the 1900 BC chariots, the invasionists argue that they “only show the arrival of Indo-European speakers in South Asia at the fag end of the Harappan Civilisation” - meaning, these chariots were brought by the Indo-Europeans.
But archaeological evidence shows the first sign of Indo-European culture with horse chariots west of the Indus river only in 1600 BC. How come the Indo-Europeans arriving from central Asia reached Sanauli in western Uttar Pradesh 300 to 500 years before they reached Indus?
Plus the archaeological evidence is clear that the chariots were being used by OCP people. OCP has been identified as distinct from, and contemporaneous with mature Harappan. According to Kumar, it’s indigenous to the Indo-Gangetic plain and goes back to 9,000-10,000 BC.
The invasionist hypothesis receives a serious setback from the finding that the horse-driven chariots were being used by the OCP people as a part of their war machinery around 2000 BC, who supposedly came to dominate the whole of the north India.
This is hundreds of years before the penetration of the "Vedic Aryans" coming from central Asia into the Yamuna-Ganga plains.
Other findings of the horse remains throughout India also corroborate Kumar’s hypothesis.
In an article published by the Journal of Indian History and Culture of the C P Ramaswami Aiyar Institute of Indological Research, Michel Danino explores the horse and the Aryan debate in detail.
G R Sharma et al found horse bones at Mahagara (near Allahabad) whose “six sample absolute carbon 14 tests have given dates ranging from 2265 BC to 1480 BC”.
Near Hallur, Karnataka, A Ghosh found the horse remains that were dated between 1500 and 1300 BC.
M K Dhavalikar, in his excavations in the Chambal Valley found horse remains and a terracotta figurine of a mare, dated between 2450 and 2000 BCE. He recorded the presence of horse at Kayatha in all the chalcolithic levels. Dhavalikar noted that the remains were of a domesticated horse.
Also, since there is archaeological evidence of the admixture of the OCP as well as the Harappan cultures in the western Uttar Pradesh, to the extent that both were using the Harappan script, it is likely that the Harappans were familiar with the horse-driven chariots.
At Surkotada, a Harappan site in Gujarat, quite a number of bones of domesticated horse were found, coinciding with the mature Harappan phase.
The presence of the domesticated horse at Surkotada was endorsed by the late Hungarian archaeo-zoologist Sándor Bökönyi, a globally respected authority in the field, whose work in tracing the introduction of the horse into Europe from central Asia is widely cited.
Some horse figurines from the Mohenjodaro and Lothal have also been found.
The invasionists often point to the paucity of the horse depictions on the Indus Valley seals and horse remains. However, this arguments is neither here nor there.
The depiction of horse remains equally rare even after the Harappan period. It was only in 3rd century BC and the Mauryan empire that the horse symbol becomes popular.
Archaeologist S P Gupta postulates that the paucity of horse remains in the IVC is in line with that of the other animals which were not consumed for meat, but are known to exist at the time.
This argument is also consistent with the findings in other parts of the world, like contemporary Bactria and America, where the spread of the horses is well known but their significant remains are not found.
The scholar K D Sethna pertinently asks, “As there are no depictions of the cow, in contrast to the pictures of the bull, which are abundant, should we conclude that Harappa and Mohenjo-daro had only bulls?..Was the unicorn a common animal of the proto-historic Indus Valley?”
Danino also disputes the purely materialistic or ritualistic reading of the Rig-Veda, which he calls unjustified when other mythologies, from the Babylonian to the Egyptian and the Greek, have long been explored at deeper figurative and symbolic levels.
The invasionists assume that the ashwa of the Rig Veda is the true horse of the central Asia. However, Rig Veda as well as a passage in the Shatapatha Brahmana describes the horse as having 34 ribs. A true horse generally has two pairs of 18 ribs, that is, 36.
Danino suggests that the horse referred to in the Rig-Veda may have been a different species, such as the smaller and stockier Siwalik or Przewalski horses, which often (not always) had 34 ribs.
The scholar Paul Manansala stressed this point and concluded, “So the horse of India, including that of the asvamedha sacrifice in what is regarded as the oldest part of the Rgveda, is a distinct variety native to southeastern Asia.”
This in line with the Kumar’s Tibet hypothesis described in the last section.
Conclusion
Apart from the carbon dating of the chariot found in Sanauli, recently, different research papers regarding the presence of Saraswati river had also raised serious questions against the Aryan invasion theory.
The dating of a mighty Saraswati river as described in the Rig Veda puts the text contemporary with, or older than, the mature Indus-Saraswati civilization.
Even so, Danino says, we need not expect Harappan art to be a pure reflection of Vedic concepts.
“The Veda represents the very specific quest of a few rishis, who are unlikely to have lived in the middle of the Harappan towns. Although Vedic concepts and symbols are visible in Harappan culture, the latter is a popular culture; in the same way, the culture of today’s Indian village need not exactly reflect Chennai’s music and dance Sabhas”.
This is in line with Bibhu Dev Misra’s hypothesis that the Harappan civilisation might be a bilingual culture, where Sanskrit was only used for liturgical purposes - never meant as a language of popular communication.
An emphasis on purity and secrecy meant that the language was only transmitted orally within a network of educated men through Guru-Shishya Parampara - the reason Sanskrit didn’t have its own script, notes Misra.
He argues that most of the Indians were speaking proto-Dravidian languages right to the 6th century BC, while Sanskrit speakers, who were almost always bilingual, continued to conduct rituals in Sanskrit.
In fact, Sanskrit has never been the language of the masses in India, and Sanskrit speakers are almost always been bilingual.
According to Misra, the current north-south language divide appeared due to popularisation of the Sanskrit-derived Prakrit, Ardh Magadhi and other languages among commoners - a phenomena he attributes to the spread of Buddhism and Jainism.
According to Misra, The geographical limits of Buddhism in India during the reign of Emperor Ashoka in the 3rd century BCE strongly correlates to the geographical distribution of Prakrit languages in India (Source: https://www.bibhudevmisra.com/2015/10/the-indus-valley-civilization-was-it.html)
At this point, it is also important to remember that there is no denying the fact that there were central Asian groups that moved into the subcontinent - but we do not know for a fact that they were "Vedic Aryans". Genetic evidence goes only so far.
A thousand years from now, genetic makeup of a dead-body found in Mumbai can tell you that the person was most likely from north India or south India, but not about their language, religion, culture, practices and lifestyle.
With further archaeological and research in the direction, the scholarly consensus may move towards a more nuanced view as opposed to the Aryan Invasion theory.
The embroidery tradition of Traidhâtavî (ishti) of investiture ceremony for Potr with trefoils on his uttariyam -- in the concluding celebration of a yajna -- continues into historical periods with trefoils adorning handicrafts made by artisanss and embroideries of Kutch even today.
Rtvij wear embroidered shawls, embroideries of trefoils, tridhatu of Traidhâtavî (ishti).
Potr 'purifier priest' (Rgveda) is potadara, poddar 'assayer of metals' ପୋଦାର୍— Podār [synonym(s): পোদ্দারपोहार]ବୈଦେ. ବି. (ଫା. ଫୌତା=ଭୁକର, ଖଜଣା; ଫୋତାହାର=ୟେ ରାଜସ୍ବ ଟଙ୍କା ପରୀକ୍ଷା କରେ)— 1। ଟଙ୍କା କୃତ୍ରିମ କି ଭଲ ତାହା ପରୀକ୍ଷା କରିବା ବ୍ୟକ୍ତି— 1. A person who sets coins; poddar. 2। ତହବିଲ୍ଦାର୍ କର୍ମଚାରୀ—2. A cash keeper; cashier. 3। ବଣିଆ; ସ୍ବର୍ଣ୍ଣ ରୌପ୍ଯ ବ୍ୟବସାଯୀ ବଣିକ— 3. Goldsmith; jeweller. 4। ମୁଦ୍ରା ବ୍ୟବସାଯୀ; ଅର୍ଥବଣିକ— 4. Money-changer; banker.ପୋଦ୍ଦାର୍— Poddār [synonym(s): পোদ্দারपोहार]ବୈଦେ. ବି. (ଫା. ଫୌତା=ଭୁକର, ଖଜଣା; ଫୋତାହାର=ୟେ ରାଜସ୍ବ ଟଙ୍କା ପରୀକ୍ଷା କରେ)— 1। ଟଙ୍କା କୃତ୍ରିମ କି ଭଲ ତାହା ପରୀକ୍ଷା କରିବା ବ୍ୟକ୍ତି— 1. A person who sets coins; poddar. 2। ତହବିଲ୍ଦାର୍ କର୍ମଚାରୀ—2. A cash keeper; cashier. 3। ବଣିଆ; ସ୍ବର୍ଣ୍ଣ ରୌପ୍ଯ ବ୍ୟବସାଯୀ ବଣିକ— 3. Goldsmith; jeweller. 4। ମୁଦ୍ରା ବ୍ୟବସାଯୀ; ଅର୍ଥବଣିକ— 4. Money-changer; banker.ପୋଦାରୀ— Podārī [synonym(s): পোদ্দারীपोद्दारी]ବୈଦେ. ବି. (ଫା.)— ପୋଦାରର କର୍ମ— The work or post of Poddār.ପୋଦ୍ଦାରୀ— Poddārī [synonym(s): পোদ্দারীपोद्दारी]ବୈଦେ. ବି. (ଫା.)— ପୋଦାରର କର୍ମ— The work or post of Poddār.(Oriya)पोतदार pōtadāra m ( P) An officer under the native governments. His business was to assay all money paid into the treasury. He was also the village-silversmith. पोतदारी pōtadārī f ( P) The office or business of पोतदार: also his rights or fees. पोतनिशी pōtaniśī f ( P) The office or business of पोतनीस. पोतनीस pōtanīsa m ( P) The treasurer or cash-keeper. पोतें pōtēṃ n ( or P) A sack or large bag. 2 The treasury or the treasure-bags of Government. 3 The treasure-bag of a village made up for the district-treasury.पोतेखाद pōtēkhāda f Wastage or loss on goods (as on sugar &c.) from adhesion to the containing sack or bag. पोतेचाल pōtēcāla f (Treasury-currency.) The currency in which the public revenue is received. 2 Used as a Of that currency; as पोतेचालीचा (रूपया-पैसा- नाणें &c.) Coin or money admitted into or issued from the Government-treasury; sterling money of the realm. पोतेझाडा pōtējhāḍā m Settlement of the accounts of the treasury.(Marathi)
Trefoil inlay decorated on a bull calf. Uruk (W.16017) ca. 3000 BCE. kõdā 'young bull calf' Rebus: kõdā 'turner-joiner' (forge),
damkom = a bull calf (Santali) Rebus: damha = a fireplace; dumhe = to heap, to collect together (Santali)
त्रिधा कृत्वा यजस्व is विष्णुधर्मोत्तरपुराणम् explanation of Traidhâtavî (ishti); त्रिधा is the trefoil It is embroidered during the ishti), the concluding ceremony of a yajna and investiture of the Rtvihj. On this sculpture, Potr 'purifier priest' is signified by the fillet of gold bead he wears. dhã̄i 'strand' PLUS vaṭa 'string' rebus: dhāvaḍ 'smelter'.The trefoils signify he is a smelter dealing with three mineral ores, copper, silver, gold. शतपथब्राह्मण attests this.
Why is an endless knot shown on this land grant on a copper tablet? It signifies Indus Script hieroglyphमेढा [mēḍhā] A twist or tangle arising in thread or cord, a curl or snarl (Marathi). Rebus: meḍ 'iron, copper' (Munda. Slavic) mẽṛhẽt, meḍ 'iron' medhā मेधा = धन, treasure धननैघण्टुक , commented on by यास्क,ii , 10.
Pilgrim badge, possibly from the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham at Walsingham Priory. This badge is in the shape of a five-pointed star which has trefoils between each point. Projecting from the star is an arrow. Late Medieval; 15th century ID no: 85.435/1
Pendant jewel; gold; trefoil form; two lower cup shaped settings with cabochon ruby and sapphire in scalloped claw mounts with four gold beads (top setting now vacant but possibly may have had a pearl suspended in front of it); cast wire in plaited pattern around rims; three repoussé six-petalled flowers on reverse; small suspension loop.. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/352688214552968306/
Sikh drivers are transforming U.S. trucking. Take a ride along the Punjabi American highway
Palwinder Singh hauls produce through New Mexico on Interstate 40 on the way to Indiana.
(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
There are 3.5 million truckers in the United States. California has the second-most after Texas. As drivers age toward retirement and a shortage grows, Sikh immigrants and their kids are increasingly taking up the job.
MILAN, N.M. — It’s 7:20 p.m. when he rolls into Spicy Bite, one of the newest restaurants here in rural northwest New Mexico.
Locals in Milan, a town of 3,321, have barely heard of it.
Los Angeles Times
The building is small, single-story, built of corrugated metal sheets. There are seats for 20. The only advertising is spray-painted on concrete roadblocks in English and Punjabi. Next door is a diner and gas station; the county jail is across the road.
Palwinder Singh orders creamy black lentils, chicken curry and roti, finishing it off with chai and cardamom rice pudding. After 13 hours on and off the road in his semi truck, he leans back in a booth as a Bollywood music video plays on TV.
“This is like home,” says Pal, the name he uses on the road (said like “Paul”).
There are 3.5 million truckers in the United States. California has 138,000, the second-most after Texas. Nearly half of those in California are immigrants, most from Mexico or Central America. But as drivers age toward retirement — the average American trucker is 55 — and a shortage grows, Sikh immigrants and their kids are increasingly taking up the job.
Estimates of the number of Sikh truckers vary. In California alone, tens of thousands of truckers trace their heritage to India. The state is home to half of the Sikhs in the U.S.— members of a monotheistic faith with origins in 15th century India whose followers are best recognized by the uncut hair and turbans many men wear. At Sikh temples in Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield and Riverside, the majority of worshipers are truck drivers and their families.
Over the last decade, Indian Americans have launched trucking schools, truck companies, truck washes, trucker temples and no-frills Indian restaurants modeled after truck stops back home, where Sikhs from the state of Punjab dominate the industry.
“You used to see a guy with a turban and you would get excited,” says Pal, who is in his 15th year of trucking. “Today, you go to some stops and can convince yourself you are in India.”
Three interstates — the I-5, I-80 and I-10 — are dotted with Indian-American-owned businesses catering to truckers. They start to appear as you drive east from Los Angeles, Reno and Phoenix, and often have the words “Bombay,” “Indian” or “Punjabi” on their storefront signs. But many, with names like Jay Bros (in Overton, Neb.) and Antelope Truck Stop Pronghorn (in Burns, Wyo.) are anonymous dots on a map unless you’re one of the many Sikhs who have memorized them as a road map to America.
Left, Singh checks his truck before getting on the road for a weeklong trip to Indiana to deliver fresh produce from California. Right, Singh waits for his turn to receive a load of produce at JBJ Distributing in Fullerton. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
The best-known are along Interstate 40, which stretches from Barstow to North Carolina. The road, much of it alongside Historic Route 66, forms the backbone of the Sikh trucking world.
It’s a route that Pal, 38, knows well. Three times a month, he makes the seven-day round trip between his Fontana home and Indiana, where he drops off loads and picks up new ones. Over his career, he’s driven 2 million miles and transported items as varied as frozen chickens and paper plates. These days, he mostly hauls chocolate, rice and fruits and vegetables from California farms. Today, it’s 103 containers of mixed produce, with mangoes, bell peppers, watermelons, yellow onions and peeled garlic among them. All are bound for a Kroger warehouse outside Indianapolis.
Across the street from Spicy Bite, dozens of arriving drivers form a temporary village of 18-wheelers in a vast parking lot by the interstate. Most are white. Nearly all are men. More are older than younger.
But every now and then there are Sikhs like Pal, with long salt-and-pepper beards, colorful turbans and thick Indian accents. They head straight toward Spicy Bite.
Lines can form out the door at the restaurant, which opened two years ago outside the Petro Stopping Center, a longtime mainstay for truckers headed east.
‘When I’m driving, I see God through his creation.’
Palwinder Singh, who is in his 15th year of trucking
Pal makes a point to stop by the restaurant — even just for a “hello” — when he sleeps next door. The Sikh greeting is “Sat sri akaal.” It means “God is truth.” In trucking, where turnover is high, business uncertain and risk of accidents ever present, each day can feel like a leap of faith and an opportunity to give thanks.
Punjabi Americans first appeared on the U.S. trucking scene in the 1980s after an anti-Sikh massacre in India left thousands dead around New Delhi, prompting many Sikhs to flee. More recently, Sikhs have migrated to Central America and applied for asylum at the Mexico border, citing persecution for their religion in India; some have also become truckers. Estimates of the overall U.S. Sikh population vary, placing the community’s size between 200,000 and 500,000.
In recent years, corporations have pleaded for new truckers. Walmart kicked up salaries to attract drivers. Last year, the government announced a pilot program to lower the age for driving trucks from 21 to 18 for those with truck-driving training in the military. According to the American Trucking Assn., the trucker shortage could reach 100,000 within years.
“Punjabis are filling the gap,” says Raman Dhillon, a former driver who last year founded the North American Punjabi Trucking Assn. The Fresno-based group advises drivers on regulations, offers insurance and tire discounts, and runs a magazine: Punjabi Trucking.
Clockwise from top left: A sign is spray-painted on a concrete roadblock outside Spicy Bite in Milan, N.M.; Palwinder Singh prays inside his cab before leaving New Mexico for Oklahoma; Singh prepares to shower at a truck stop in Milan; and at Spicy Bite, he dines on familiar foods. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
Like trucking itself, where the threat of automation and the long hours away from home have made it hard to recruit drivers, the Punjabi trucking life isn’t always an easy sell. Three years ago, a group of Sikh truckers in California won a settlement from a national shipping company after saying it discriminated against their faith. The drivers, who followed Sikh traditions by wrapping their uncut hair in turbans, said bosses asked them to remove the turbans before providing hair and urine samples for pre-employment drug tests despite being told of the religious observance. The same year, police charged a man with vandalizing a semi truck at a Sikh temple in Buena Park. He’d scribbled the word “ISIS.”
Still, Hindi- and Punjabi-language newspapers in the Eastern U.S. regularly run ads promising better wages, a more relaxed lifestyle and warm weather as a trucker out West. Talk to any group of Sikh drivers and you’ll find former cabbies, liquor store workers or convenience store cashiers who made the switch.
“Thirty years ago, it was hard to get into trucking because there were so few people like us in the business who could help you,” says Rashpal Dhindsa, a former trucker who runs Fontana-based Dhindsa Group of Companies, one of the oldest Sikh-owned U.S. trucking companies. When Pal first started, Dhindsa — now a close friend but then an acquaintance — gave him a $1,000 loan to cover training classes.
It’s 6:36 a.m. the next day when the Petro Stopping Center switches from quiet darkness to rumbling engines. Pal flips on the headlights of his truck, a silver ’16 Volvo with a 500-horsepower engine. Inside the rig, he heats aloo gobi — spiced potatoes and cauliflower — that his wife prepared back home. He checks the thermostat to make sure his trailer isn’t too warm. He takes out a book wrapped in a blue cotton cloth that’s tucked by his driver’s seat, sits on a bed-turned-couch and reads a prayer in Punjabi for safety on the journey: There is only one God. Truth is His name…. You always protect us.
He pulls east onto the highway as the sun rises.
Singh takes a break in New Mexico on his way to Indiana. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
Truckers either drive in pairs or solo like Pal. Either way, it’s a quiet, lonely world.
Still, Pal sees more of America in a week than some people will in their lives. Rolling California hills, spiky desert rock formations, the snow-dusted evergreens of northern Arizona, the fuzzy cacti in New Mexico and, in Albuquerque, hot air balloons rising over an orange sky. There’s also the seemingly endless fast food and Tex-Mex of Amarillo and the 19-story cross of Groom, Texas. There’s the traffic in Missouri. After hours of solitude on the road, it excites him.
Pal’s not strict on dogma or doctrine, and he’s more spiritual than religious. Trucking has shown him that people are more similar than different no matter where you go. The best of all religions, he says, tend to teach the same thing — kindness to others, accepting whatever comes your way and appreciation for what’s in front of you on the road.
“When I’m driving,” Pal says, “I see God through his creation.”
His favorite sights are the farms. You spot them in Central California while picking up pallets of potatoes and berries, or in Illinois and Indiana while driving through the corn and soybean fields.
They remind him of home, the rural outskirts of Patiala, India.
Nobody in his family drove trucks. Still, to Pal, he’s continuing tradition. His father farmed potatoes, cauliflower, rice and tomatoes. As a child, Pal would ride tractors for fun with Dad. Today, instead of growing food, Pal transports it.
He wasn’t always a trucker. After immigrating in 2001 with his younger brother, he settled in Canoga Park and worked nights at 7-Eleven. After he was robbed at gunpoint, a friend suggested trucking. Better pay, flexible hours — and less dangerous.
Left, Singh says goodbye to his wife, Harjeet Kaur, as he leaves for Indiana. Right, Singh comforts his 4-year-old son, Devjot Kamboj, who was saddened to learn his dad had another cross-country delivery to make. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
Three years later, he started driving a rig he didn’t own while getting paid per mile. Today, he has his own company, two trucks between himself and his brother — also a driver — and bids on shipments directly with suppliers. Nationally, the average pay for a trucker is just above $43,000. Pal makes more than twice that.
He uses the money to pay for the house he shares with his wife, Harjeet Kaur, 4-year-old son, brother and sister-in-law, nieces and parents. Kaur threads eyebrows at a salon and video chats with him during lunch breaks. Every week before he leaves, she packs a duffel bag of his ironed clothes and stacked containers of food for the road.
“I love it,” Pal says about driving. “But there are always two sides of the coin, head and tail. If you love it, then you have to sacrifice everything. I have to stay away from home. But the thing is, this job pays me good.”
The truck is fully equipped. From the road, you can see only driver and passenger seats. But behind them is a sleeper cab with a bed that’s 6-foot-7 by 3-foot-2.
Pal likes to connect the TV sitting atop a mini-fridge to his phone to stream music videos when he’s alone. His favorite songs are by Sharry Maan, an Indian singer who topped charts two years ago with “Transportiye.” It tells the story of a Sikh American trucker who longs for his wife while on the road. At night, the table folds down to become a bed. Pal is just missing a bathroom and his family.
Singh prays at home before taking off for a long drive. Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times
The life of a Sikh trucker is one of contrasts. On one hand, you see the diversity of America. You encounter new immigrants from around the world working the same job as people who have been truckers for decades. All transport the food, paper and plastic that make the country run. But you also see the relics of the past and the reminders of how you, as a Sikh in 2019, still don’t entirely fit in.
It’s 9:40 a.m. on Saturday when Pal pulls into Bowlin’s Flying C Ranch rest center in Encino, N.M., an hour past Albuquerque and two from Texas. Here, you can buy a $19,999 stuffed buffalo, Baja jackets and fake Native American moccasins made in China in a vast tourist stop attached to a Dairy Queen and an Exxon. “God Bless the U.S.A.” by Lee Greenwood plays in the background.
It reminds Pal of the time he was paying his bill at another gas station. A man suddenly shouted at customers to “get out, he’s going to blow up this place!” “I will not fight you,” Pal calmly replied. The man left. Those kinds of instances are rare, but Pal always senses their danger. Some of the most violent attacks on Sikhs this century have been at the hands of people who mistook them for Muslims or Arabs, including the case of a turban-wearing Sikh man in Arizona who was shot dead by a gunman four days after the Sept. 11 attacks.
‘You used see a guy with a turban and you would get excited. Today, you go to some stops and can convince yourself you are India.’
Palwinder Singh
For Pal, suspicious glances are more common. So are the truckers who think he’s new to the business or doesn't speak English. None of it fazes him.
“Everybody relates to us through Osama bin Laden because we look the same,” he says, driving across the plains toward the Texas Panhandle. “Or they think because my English sounds different that I am not smart. I know who I am.”
Every day, he wears a silver bracelet that symbolizes a handcuff. “Remember, you are handcuffed to God. Remind yourself to not do bad things,” Pal says. It reminds him to be kind in the face of ignorance and hatred.
At a Subway in Amarillo a few hours later, he grabs his go-to lunch when he’s taking a break from Indian food: a chicken sandwich on white bread with pepper jack, lettuce, tomato and onion. At home, the family is vegetarian. Pal relishes chances on the road to indulge in meat. He used to depend solely on his wife’s cooking. Today, he has other options. It’s a luxury to switch from homemade meals to Punjabi restaurants to fast food.
Clockwise from top left: Sikh priests lead a Nagar Kirtan parade followed by a truck out of Palwinder Singh's temple in Jurupa Valley; Pritam Singh, who also works for a trucking company, attends the festivities; Ekamjit Sandhu sits in his uncle's truck; and Baljit Singh, who has been driving trucks for 30 years, at Nagar Kirtan festivities. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
Trucking has helped Pal find his faith. When he moved to the U.S., he used to shave, drink beer and not care much about religion. But as he got bored on the road, he started listening to religious sermons. Twelve years ago, he began to again grow his hair and quit alcohol; drinking it is against the faith’s traditions. Today, he schedules shipments around the temple calendar so he can attend Sikh celebrations with his family.
“I don’t mind questions about my religion. But when people say to me, ‘Why do you not cut your hair?’ they are asking the wrong question,” Pal says. “The real question is, why do they cut their hair? God made us this way.”
It’s 4:59 p.m. when he arrives in Sayre, Okla., at Truck Stop 40. A yellow Punjabi-language billboard advertises it as the I-40 starts to bend north in a rural region two hours from Oklahoma City.
Singh arrives near sunset at Truck Stop 40, one of the largest Sikh-run rest stops, in Sayre, Okla. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
Among the oldest Sikh truck stops, it has a 24-hour vegetarian restaurant, convenience store, gas station and a housing trailer that functions as a temple — all spread over several acres.
Pal has been coming here for more than decade, since it was a mechanic shop run by a Sikh former trucker who settled on the plot for its cheap land. When he has time, Pal lingers for a meal. But he’s in a rush to get to Joplin, Mo., for the night so he can make his drop-off the next day.
He grabs a chai and heads to the temple. Resting on a small pillow upon the altar is the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh holy book. An audiotape plays prayers on a loop. A print of Guru Nanak, the faith’s founder, hangs on the wall.
Pal prostrates and leaves a few dollar bills on the floor as a donation for upkeep. He prays for God to protect the temple, his family and himself on the 891 miles that remain until he hits the Indianapolis suburbs.
“This feels like a long drive,” Pal says. “But it’s just a small part of the journey of life.”
Jaweed Kaleem is the national race and justice correspondent at the Los Angeles Times. Before joining The Times, Kaleem was the senior religion reporter at HuffPost and a religion and general assignment reporter at the Miami Herald. He attended Emerson College in Boston and grew up in Northern Virginia. .https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-col1-sikh-truckers-20190627-htmlstory.html
The world is full of colors. Almost all of them can be described by a wavelength of visible light, but there are some colors out there that are just in your head!
''A tumulus or 'kurgan' in shape of a spoked wheel discovered from Harappan city of Dholavira in Gujarat. Archaeologist RS Bisht connects it with rathachakraciti or fire altars in shape of spoked wheels mentioned in ritualistic texts. Though he tries to connect the altars in general with funerary mounds, there is still no direct relation between rathachakraciti & funerary monuments. it is still possible that later day designs of stupa bases evolved from such mounds. See stupa base from Bhimala in shape of spoked wheel.''
रथ--चक्र a chariots-wheel Br. Kaus3. MBh. &c; रथ--चक्र---चित् arranged in the form of a chariots-wheel TS. S3Br. &c (Monier-Williams)
Sign 391 is a significant hieroglyph of Indus Script. The hieroglyph signifies: څرخ ṯs̱arḵẖ 'potter's wheel' rebus: arka 'gold, copper'; arka sāḷ 'goldsmith workshop'. The hieroglyph is repeated four times on Dholavira Signboard proclamation of metalwork workshops of Dholavira's Sign 327 on the signboard signified:kamaṛ, kammaṭa khārsāḷ 'workshop of blacksmith (of) mint OR mint blacksmith workshop'.
I submit that the circular form of the Bauddham stupa and the Dholavira tumulus is related to the abiding memory of goldsmith's workshops of the ancestors of the artisans.
Citi (f.) [From ci, cināti, to heap up] a heap, made of bricks J vi.204 (city -- avayata -- piṭṭhikā). Cetiya (nt.) [cp. from ci, to heap up, cp. citi, cināti] 1. a tumulus, sepulchral monument, cairn, M i.20; Dh 188; J i.237; vi.173; SnA 194 (dhātu -- gharaŋ katvā cetiyaŋ patiṭṭhāpesuŋ); KhA 221; DhA iii.29 (dhātu˚); iv. 64; VvA 142; Sdhp 428, 430. Pre -- Buddhistic cetiyas mentioned by name are Aggāḷava˚ Vin ii.172; S i.185; Sn p. 59; DhA iii.170; Ānanda˚ D ii.123, 126; Udena˚ D ii.102, 118; iii.9; DhA iii.246; Gotama (ka)˚ ibid.; Cāpāla˚ D ii.102, 118; S v.250; Ma -- kuṭabandhana˚ D ii.160; Bahuputta˚ D ii.102, 118; iii.10; S ii.220; A iv.16; Sattambaka˚ D ii.102, 118; Sārandada D ii.118, 175; A iii.167; Supatiṭṭha˚ Vin i.35. -- angaṇa the open space round a Cetiya Miln 366; Vism 144, 188, 392; DA i.191, 197; VvA 254. -- vandanā Cetiya worship Vism 299.(Pali)
4796citā f. ʻ funeral pyre ʼ MBh. [√ci1]Pa. citakā -- f., Pk. ciā -- , ciyayā -- f., G. ce f. *citādhāna -- , *caitiya -- .Addenda: citā -- : S.kcch. cai f. ʻ funeral pyre ʼ.
4797citādhāna ʻ funeral pile ʼ. [citā -- , dhāˊna -- ]L. awāṇ. cahāṇī f. ʻ cremation ground ʼ; N. cihān ʻ grave ʼ; H. ciwānā m., cihānī f. ʻ cremation ground ʼ.
4798cíti f. ʻ layer, pile, stack of wood ʼ TS. [√ci1]Pa. citi -- f. ʻ heap (of bricks) ʼ; Pk. cii -- f. ʻ layer, collecting together, building (a wall &c.) ʼ, ciigā -- , cīyā -- f., ˚ya -- n. ʻ funeral pyre ʼ; Ash. ċī ʻ bark of tree ʼ, Wg. čī (< cīˊra -- NTS ii 250), Kt. čīk, Paš. čīk, Gaw. ċĭ̄k.
4914 *caitiya, caitya -- ʻ relating to a funeral pyre ʼ, m.n. ʻ funeral monument, sacred tree ʼ ĀśvGr̥. [citā -- ]Pa. cētiya -- n. ʻ sepulchral monument ʼ, Pk. cēia -- m.n.; OG. ceīya, ceī m. ʻ shrine ʼ; OSi. (Brāhmī inscr.) ceta, ceya, Si. sā̤ya ʻ heap of wood, funeral pyre ʼ H. Smith JA 1950, 207.(CDIAL)
Anindya Sarkar, professor of geology and isotope geochemistry at IIT, Kharagpur, was lead researcher of a recent paper published in the Journal of Quaternary Science, on how Dholavira, an Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) site, holds important lessons for dealing with climate change. The site was excavated by RS Bisht in the 1990s. Sarkar explains his study to Avijit Ghosh:
What does Dholavira mean? When and where did the site exist? When exactly was itspeak period?
Dholavira is the name of the village at Khadir bet, Bhachau Taluka, Great Rann of Kutch of Gujarat. “Bet” in local language means island. The archaeological (Harappan) site is locally known as Kotada timba meaning a large fort probably referring to the large ruins of the fortified ancient civilisation site.
The site is located about 500 meters north of the Dholavira village on the Khadir island within the low lying Rann of Kachchh. Our latest accelerator based radiocarbon dating suggests the beginning of occupation at least from 3500 years BCE (pre‐Harappan), and continuation until 1800 years BCE (early part of the Late Harappan period).
However, the settlement possibly started even earlier since the oldest settlement level could not be dated due to lack of datable material. One can guess that it can be even 4000 year BCE or even older making it a very ancient human settlement in the Indian subcontinent (“Pre‐Dholavira culture” named by the excavator Dr RS Bisht of ASI). The city expanded very rapidly from 2900 BCE till 2400 BCE when the inhabitants of Dholavira switched over from use of mud bricks to stone bricks for making houses and fortification walls; they built Citadel, Bailey, Lower and Middle Town much like what are found in most other contemporary cities like Harappa and Mohenjo‐Daro. These were probably due to social hierarchy where people from different segments of the society engaged in different activities used to live. During this peak period they added new architectural elements; their craftsmanship namely, making of potteries, ornaments rapidly improved and probably they started long distance trade with other Harappan/Indus valley civilisation sites even to Mesopotamia. This period in the context of Indus valley civilisation is known as urban Harappan period when it reached its acme.
What were the site’s distinct features?
Dholavira is the most spectacular IVC site in India and the fifth largest in the subcontinent in terms of areal coverage (Mohenjo Daro 250 hectare (Ha), Harappa 150 Ha, Rakhigarhi 80–105 Ha, Ganeriwala 81 Ha and Dholavira 70 Ha). It is the largest excavated Harappan site in India which can be seen by the tourists. All other sites were buried and covered up after the excavation was over. But Dholavira is unique because it records continuous settlement at one given place for over 1700 years from Pre‐Harappan to Late Harappan period. It shows excellent city planning, wide roads, architecture with geometric precisions, and craftsmanship. More importantly they adopted very advanced water conservation and harvesting system from building series of connected reservoirs, stone and terracotta drainage pipes to wells. They also built dams on the two rivers Mansar and Manhar which flowed around this city during this time. The dry river beds of these rivers can be seen even today. During this long period, the climate changed severely from a good monsoon to weak monsoon but they sustained these long years by adopting water conservation techniques suggesting their resilience and participatory nature of the society. The only thing that is yet to be studied is their burial history. Apparently there are burial mounds around but need to be excavated further by the Archaeological Survey of India and properly documented.
Dholavira is the fifth largest site of the Indus Valley Civilization. It is also the largestexcavated site in India? Yet it is lesser known than say, Kalibangan. Why?
I do not know if such a comparison can be made. Kalibangan is located at southern bank of the presently dried river Ghaggar in Rajasthan and characterised by its unique fire altars and one of the world’s earliest ploughed field. But the features of Kalibangan and Dholavira are similar, similar town planning like citadel, lower town etc., and roads which had precision width. The timing is also almost similar from 3500 BCE to 1700 BCE after which both the cities collapsed. The only thing about Kalibangan is it was dated very extensively by archaeologists and its different phases were very well constrained by carbon dating. But after our work, Dholavira archaeological periods are also now on very strong ground in terms of its chronology. Dholavira is lesser known probably due to its remote location in the salt desert and also it was not studied until recently by using modern scientific techniques. In any case both were unique Harappan metropolis exhibiting very advanced city planning not found even in its counterparts in West Asia.
What caused the demise of Dholavira?
From the Later part of Mature Harappan time, i.e. from ~2400 year BCE the expansion of the city at Dholavira slowed down or even ceased until 2300 year BCE with an abrupt decline between 2300 and 2000 year BCE manifested by degeneration of architecture, craftsmanship, and material culture. They were unable to maintain the city; resources were scarce and water reservoirs were no longer in use. Also the site was deserted for few centuries. During the last Stage the city had disappeared, along with the classical Harappan elements and what remained had no resemblance to the Harappan culture. In a sense, it was an attempt to resettle at Dholavira but in a very basic way when probably the pastoralism re‐appeared who had no connection with the developed Harappan culture. Even this was for a very short period and the site was finally deserted. We feel the demise was connected to climate change. We analysed high resolution oxygen isotopes in mollusc shells Terebralia palustris. These are found aplenty in Dholavira, many of them are finely cut by human and were being consumed for food by the Dholavirans. These molluscs typically grow in mangrove suggesting that the people were harvesting them from nearby mangroves. The isotopes tell about the sources and the seasonality of water in which these animals grew. Surprisingly when we analysed the Early to Mature Harappan molluscs (2700 year BCE old) it looked that they grew in a water that is only possible if glacial meltwater mixes in the mangrove. The seasonality was high. This clearly suggested that a glacier fed river was debouching in the Rann of Kutch. But then isotopes in the molluscs from terminal part of mature to late Harappan from 2300 to 2100 years BCE indicated that the glacial contribution disappeared and seasonality reduced. This is the time that exactly coincides with the decadence and fall of the city of Dholavira as indicated by the archaeological evidence and the onset of the newly proposed Meghalayan stage (a divison of geological time) suggested last year by an international body of geologists and stratigraphers when a drought occurred across the globe. We could immediately make the connection. The monsoon was anyway declining. Dholavirans adopted excellent water conservation strategy by building dams, reservoirs and pipelines. But came the apocalypse of few centuries of Meghalayan drought and the whole city collapsed. The collapse of Harappan Dholavira was near‐synchronous to the decline at all the Harappan sites in India like Kalibangan, Lothal, Rakhigarhi as well as Mesopotamia, and the Old Kingdom of Egypt and China.
Your paper says, Dholavira presents a classic case for understanding how climate changecan increase future drought risk across much of the sub‐tropics and mid‐latitudes? Pleaseexplain.
If you read all IPCC reports they predict increased frequency of extreme events including droughts in future due to impending climate change. The climate modelling studies suggest that in particular, drought will increase in sub‐tropics and mid-latitudes. We are beginning to see this in India. The number of monsoon break days is increasing while the number of monsoon depressions is declining. In 2019 a large part of our country was drought prone. All the past climate records in India show that monsoon was very strong between 7000 year and 5000 year BCE. From 5000 year BCE onward monsoon started declining, a record of which we published earlier from another Harappan site Bhiranna of Haryana. However, the monsoon was still higher compared to today. Scientists link this to solar radiation change that continuously reduced during this period. Clearly Harappans emerged at a time when monsoon was good and they sustained their cities by agriculture in fertile river banks be it Indus or Ghaggar‐Hakra around which almost all the Harappan sites grew. But then monsoon was decreasing yet the Harappans were genius to adopt water conservation as I told before. Not only this, they changed their crop pattern from water intensive crops like rice to millets which do not require so much water. This has been shown by many scientists including us from various Harappan sites. Just think about their modern outlook. Even today we cannot change the crop pattern in the drought prone areas with all our mighty technology, satellite surveys, and communications. The final blow to the Harappans, however, came when a global mega‐drought spread over over 2‐3 centuries hit them and they could no longer cope up. And as I said it was collapse of all the major ancient cityscapes across the globe. This seems like a fiction but it teaches us two important lessons. One is we must learn quickly how to cope up with the reduced monsoon and water deficit due to climate change specially our agriculture.Second if we do not learn then a catastrophe is waiting for us. The Dholavirans sustained for 1700 years and the modern civilisation is just about 200 years (if you consider industrial revolution). It is hard to tell what will happen after another 1500 years‐ will mankind survive or perish?
Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman referred to Harappan civilization as Saraswati‐Sindhu civilization in her Budget speech. Is that a historically accurate description?
Look Indus valley civilisation is a name given by archaeologists when it was discovered near Indus River. Because Harappa was a first type locality it was also called Harappan civilisation. This is customary in archaeology or geology to name a newly discovered time or event after the locality where it was discovered first. In geology when we say Devonian period it means a period that is 350 to 400 million years old, named after a place called Devon in England where it was first documented. But then Devonian rocks are found everywhere including Himalayas and geologists do not give it a different name because it is in India or Europe or Africa. These are accepted norms. Likewise when we say Indus valley civilisation it only means a period first described at places of Indus River valley.
But as we know now the civilisation was not only confined to Indus valley and in fact was far more expansive in India than thought before. And in India it grew along the Ghaggar‐Hakra river valleys which people often conjectured as courses of ancient river Saraswati mentioned in the Rig Veda. At present Ghaggar‐Hakra, though it originates in the Himalayas, is ephemeral and dries up at the periphery of the Thar Desert. Satellite imageries by ISRO scientists indicated that the palaeo‐channels of this river system probably flowed across the desert and into the Rann of Kachchh. Our isotope studies in the Dholavira molluscs provided first direct evidence of a glacier fed river that was debouching in the Rann of Kutch. Even today the river Indus has glacial meltwater contribution in its lower reaches. It has minor contribution from monsoon. Our data suggest that the Rann had periodic inundation of sea water where prolific mangroves grew and distributaries of Indus, like Nara (at Indo‐Pak border in Kachchh) or Saraswati like palaeochannels detected by satellite imageries in the southern margin of Thar Desert were dumping their water in the Rann. In that sense there is nothing wrong to call this civilisation as Saraswati‐Sindhu (Indus) civilisation. However this is a problem of semantics and archaeologists internationally have to agree about formal change to such name. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/Addictions/dholavira-is-the-most-spectacular-indus-valley-site-in-india-its-demise-was-connected-to-climate-change/?fbclid=IwAR3wN0fF3kpQW-RSXrxAgQ173a6LknCG5aXRUFvDwHZf_qZFocRj7ggwJK4
The Cult of Boudhanath Stupa/Jarung Khashar Suvraga in Mongolia: Texts, Images, and Architectural Replicas
Isabelle Charleux, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (GSRL- EPHE-PSL)
Charleux, Isabelle. "The Cult of Boudhanath Stupa/Jarung Khashar Suvraga in Mongolia: Texts, Images, and Architectural Replicas." Cross-Currents: East Asian History and Culture Review (e-journal) 31: 82–125. https://cross-currents.berkeley.edu/e-journal/issue-31/charleux.
Plan and drawing depicting Boudhanath stupa and its surroundings from above. Source: Slusser (1982, fig. 25).
The cult of the Nepalese stupa of Boudhanath (Tib. Jarung khashor/Bya rung kha shor, Mo. Jarung khashar) was very popular in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Mongolia, especially in Buryatia. Testaments to its popularity include the translation into Mongolian of a famous Tibetan guidebook to Boudhanath, a corpus of Mongolian oral narratives, the many thangkasand amulets depicting Boudhanath stupa along with a Tibetan prayer, and the existence of architectural replicas in Mongolia, probably to create surrogate pilgrimages to Boudhanath. How was Nepalese architecture transmitted to Mongolia? This article focuses on these architectural replicas in an attempt to understand whether the differences between the “original” structure and the Mongol replicas are due to local techniques and materials, the impossibility of studying the original, or distortions induced by the mode of transmission. Has the original building been reinterpreted to the point of transforming its meaning, and were the architectural replicas accompanied by the cult practices associated with it?
Keywords: Buddhist architecture, Buddhist art, stupa, Bodnāth, Boudhanath, Nepal, Mongolia, replication of sacred architecture, pilgrimage
The Cult of Boudhanath Stupa/Jarung Khashar Suvraga in Mongolia: Texts, Images, and Architectural Replicas
A contemporary Mongol story relates that in ancient India, a blue elephant had exhausted itself in the construction of a giant stupanamed “Jarung khashar.”[1] When the stupawas completed, the great lama who consecrated it thanked everyone but forgot to thank the elephant. The angry elephant then made a vow to destroy Buddhism in its future reincarnations. Its first reincarnation was King Langdarma (Tib. gLang dar ma, r. 838–841), who (is said to have) persecuted Buddhists in Tibet; later reincarnations included, for Buryat Mongols of Russia, “Master” Stalin (Stalin bagsh) (Humphrey 2001, 32–33, from a story collected by U. Hurelbaatar in 1999), and, for Khorchin Mongols of Inner Mongolia, Mao Zedong, Liu Shaoqi, and Ulaankhüü (1907–1988, a famous Inner Mongolian communist politician)—Mao was the head, Liu was the chest, and Ulaankhüü was the buttock of the blue elephant (U. Hurelbaatar, personal communication, 2016). It is said that even Buddha and the deities could not prevent the disastrous results of such a vow.
Jarung khashar (sometimes spelled “Jarang" or “Jirung khashar”; Cyr. Mo. Jarun, Jaran, or Jiran khashor) is the Mongolian name of Boudhanath (or Bodnāth) stupa, one of the most famous monuments of the Kathmandu Valley (figures 1, 2a, and 2b). The Mongolian name comes from the Tibetan Bya rung kha shor (pronounced “Jarung khashor”), which is explained by a story recorded in the main Tibetan guidebook devoted to the Nepalese stupa, the mChod rten chen po bya rung kha shor gyi lo rgyus thos pas grol ba (History of the stupa Jarung khashor, liberation upon hearing), written in the sixteenth century[2] (for Mongolian translations of this guidebook, see below). According to this guidebook, a poor widowed poultry keeper named Déchokma (Tib. bDemchogma, Mo. Demchogmaa, Skt. Saṃvara), who lived with her four sons, wanted to erect a stupa to enshrine relics of the past Buddha Kaśyapa. She had obtained the king’s approval, but jealous nobles and ministers, shocked that a mendicant could build such a huge stupa, wanted the king to forbid its construction.[3] The name of the stupa comes from the king’s answer: “Jarung khashor/bya rung kha shor,” meaning “I have already given her my permission [kha shor] to proceed with the work [bya rung].”[4] Through oaths of reincarnation on the part of the poultry keeper’s sons, the foundation of the stupa was connected to those mainly responsible for introducing Buddhism into Tibet: King Trison Détsen (Khri srong lde btsan, r. 740 or 755–797), Abbot Śāntarakṣita (725–788), and the eighth-century tantric master Padmasambhava.[5] Thanks to the blessings generated by the construction of the stupa and to the oaths of reincarnation, the first Buddhist monastery was founded, and Buddhism was firmly established in Tibet. Two animals that had participated in the construction, a donkey and the abovementioned elephant, had bad thoughts and were reincarnated as evil beings, but the reincarnations of other actors of the story countered their bad deeds.
Figure 1. Boudhanath stupa, Kathmandu, Nepal, 1993. Photo by Katia Buffetrille.Figure 2a (left). Plan depicting Boudhanath stupa and its surroundings from above. Source: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/121/multiple=1 andunique_number=1448. Figure 2b (right). Drawing depicting Boudhanath stupa and its surroundings from above. Source: Slusser (1982, fig. 25).
Anthropologist U. Hurelbaatar and other Mongol friends with whom I discussed this story did not relate this “Jarung khashar” stupa with Boudhanath stupa in Kathmandu and thought it was a myth. Yet in the late Qing period (1644–1911), Mongols, like Tibetans, not only went on pilgrimage to Boudhanath but also had replicas of the Nepalese stupa erected in the steppe. In my survey of the Buddhist architectural and artistic heritage of the Mongols, I came across six “Jarung khashar” stupas explicitly referring to Boudhanath in (Khalkha) Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, and Buryatia, as well as twenty-four thangkas depicting “Jarung Khashar” stupas (tables 1 and 2). These architectural replicas are called “Jarung khashar”[6] or, more recently, Ama aldasan (Cyr. Mo. Am aldsan, taking of an oath, making a promise) (Pürevbat 2005, 107). To my knowledge, no architectural replicas of Boudhanath stupa were built in Tibet before the twenty-first century,[7] but three were erected in Bhutan.[8] How did the cult of the Nepalese Boudhanath stupa reach the Mongols, and how did they know about it? Why did they especially replicate Boudhanath stupa instead of other famous Indian structures?
In understanding how architectural knowledge of Boudhanath stupa was transmitted to Mongolia, I was most inspired by the works of Alexander Griswold, Anne Chayet, Patricia Berger, and Christopher Wood on the replication of sacred sites.[9] In a 1965 article, Griswold compares architectural replicas of the Mahabodhi Temple of Bodh Gaya in Southeast Asia, Nepal, and China and argues that the architecture of the Indian temple was transmitted through small-scale models. In a study of the temples of Chengde (or Jehol) northwest of Beijing, Chayet (1985) argues that Manchu emperors Kangxi (r. 1661–1722) and Qianlong (r. 1736–1796) copied Tibetan structures for political reasons, to make the Manchu emperors’ summer palace the new center of Tibetan Buddhism.[10] She evidenced that paintings were certainly the main medium of transfer, which partly explains the distortions of perspective, approximations, and trompe-l’oeil effect of the temples of Chengde.[11] In Empire of Emptiness, Berger studies copies of Buddhist works of art at the court of Qianlong and calls this process of replication a “translation,” because artworks, like Buddhist scriptures, are translated into new cultural forms to make them more familiar, to allow their indigenization (2003, 9–13). Wood’s Forgery, Replica, Fiction (2008) on replicas of the Holy Sepulcher in Renaissance Germany also offers a theoretical apparatus that is useful for my analysis.[12]
When comparing replicas with the “original object,”[13] and evaluating how closely they adhere to or deviate from it, art historians have often observed that differences are more obvious than similarities.[14] What has been transmitted can be called the “concept,” the “essence,” or the “soul” of the original image or structure. Griswold compares the architectural copy to the act of planting a germ or a seed of the Bodhi tree: the descendant is a Ficus religiosa and preserves the essence of the original tree.[15] Hence, in some cases it would be more accurate to refer to the replica as a “quotation” (following Berger),[16] a “reference” (following Wood), a “transplantation” (following Griswold), or a “representation” of the original object.
Wood notes that a replica may retain some compulsory characteristics from the original—such as scale and proportions, or ground plane—but not nonessential, contingent features like ornamentation, size, or construction materials and techniques (2008, 43). What then are the essential, identifying features, which we could call the “iconography” of a sacred structure? To understand the differences between the model and the replica, we need to know how the model was transmitted. Are differences due to a poor knowledge of the original, the deformation of reduced three-dimensional models and two-dimensional depictions, the transmission by a literary source (such as an iconographical description), or local techniques and materials? Or, can differences be attributed to personal, deliberate choices of builders and their own vision of what the original looks like? To answer this question, it is necessary to study the transmission of the legend, the history, and the iconography through texts, oral narratives, and portable images, as well as, when available, the biographies of the people responsible for these transmissions.
Even when the model is not recognizable in the replica, these copies nonetheless make explicit references to an original, often through an inscription, a label,[17] a lama’s vision,[18] oral narratives, or a guidebook that denies the difference between the model and the replica (Charleux 2015a, 89). With this process of legitimization, in the eyes of devotees the copy has the same, or almost the same, “power” or ritual efficacy as the original. In many cases, a pilgrimage to a replicated sacred place is said to be equivalent to journeying to the distant original: the replica therefore functions as an acceptable “substitute.”[19] Or, a greater number of circumambulations of the replica is prescribed by clerics and pilgrimage guides to obtain the same amount of benefits.[20] The reason for the construction of replicas is often to build a surrogate pilgrimage site, because a sacred site is located too far away or has been destroyed.[21] With the creation of replicas, a sacred site moves closer to the pilgrims’ home: it is not the pilgrim who travels abroad but the pilgrimage center that travels to the pilgrims, transferring (and extending) the numinous power of the original. Surrogate pilgrimages are made throughout the Buddhist world: it is like worshipping the same deity in different temples. In this “process of substitution,” the architectural replicas aim to take the place of the original and deny difference, creating an “effect of identity” (Wood 2008, 40). Like the Buddha’s relics, which were divided and transferred, such promotion of a local pilgrimage was a strategy to enhance the prestige of a religious site and attract crowds of pilgrims.
To illuminate the Mongol cult of Boudhanath, I will examine its architectural replicas, discuss their differences from the Nepalese stupa, and question whether these differences may be explained by the stupa’s depiction in two-dimensional images. But first I will provide some information on the historical context of the cult of Boudhanath in Mongolia, Mongols’ pilgrimages to Nepal, and the role of the sixteenth-century guidebook and other literary sources. Finally, I will ask whether there were some uniquely Mongol characteristics in the cult of Boudhanath, and whether the “Jarung khashar” stupas became a new type of Mongol stupa.
The Historical Context of the Cult of Boudhanath in Mongolia
Why do replicas appear at a particular place and time? Before introducing the architectural replicas of Boudhanath, I will present some of the historical context surrounding the construction of replicas of Buddhist sacred sites in Mongolia. In the eighteenth century, a replica of the Mahabodhi Temple of Bodh Gaya, the place where Buddha attained Enlightenment in India, was built in Hohhot (Cl. Mo. Khökhekhota, Inner Mongolia, China). It was actually a copy of a copy, because it replicated the fifteenth-century Beijing pagoda built on the model of the Mahabodhi (Charleux 2006a). The construction of this building known as the Tabun suburga (Ch. Wuta, “Five Stupas”) between 1727 and 1732 must be placed in the particular context of the cosmopolitan Manchu court in the first half of the Qing period: although the structure was built with private funding, its founder Biligündalai (d. 1745), a high-ranking Mongol lama, was close to the Manchu court and to Third Changkya Khutugtu Rölpé Dorjé (lCang skya khutugtu Rol pa’i rdo rje, 1717–1786) (Charleux 2006a).[22]
The replicas of Boudhanath in Mongolia, as well as the thangkasdepicting the Nepalese stupaand the translation of the guidebook, all appeared in a different context in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The late nineteenth century was a time of economic stagnation and Sino-Manchu domination yet one of relative peace, rise in faith, pilgrimages (Charleux 2015b), and rich artistic production. One of the replicas was built in Ikh Khüree (Cl. Mo. Yekhe Khüriye) or Örgöö (transcribed in Russian as Urga), the great monastery and residence of the Jebtsündamba Khutugtu that had settled in the Tuul Valley in 1855, on the site of present-day Ulaanbaatar. The building of a “Jarung khashar” stupa may have been part of a larger program of artistic and architectural projects in and around the monastic city linked to the construction of Ikh Khüree as the main pilgrimage center of Khalkha Mongolia (Charleux 2015b, 44–48; Uranchimeg 2016).
After the fall of the Qing, Inner Mongols struggled for autonomy while their land became the focus of conflicts between various foreign powers. Between 1927 and 1935, the Ninth Panchen Lama, Lozang Thubten Chökyi Nyima (bLo bzang thub bstan chos kyi nyi ma, 1883–1937) traveled through Inner Mongolia, where he performed Kālacakra initiations (the Wheel of Time, an advanced tantric teaching).[23] He ordered the construction of a replica of Boudhanath stupa in order to “bring peace and happiness to the whole banner” (Delege 1998, 633) in this period of troubles and rebellions. During the same period, Buddhism was developing as a world religion from Sri Lanka to China and Buryatia and was the object of reformation attempts in several countries. India was revalorized as the homeland of “ecumenical Buddhism” and Bodh Gaya was resacralized as the main place of pilgrimage to the “origins of Buddhism,” while improved means of transportation made the pilgrimage to India and Nepal much easier (Huber 2008).
If this period seems to have created a climate that was conducive to pilgrimages and the construction of replicated architectures of the Holy Land, this climate does not explain why Boudhanath was specifically chosen instead of, for example, Bodh Gaya. Was the cult of Boudhanath linked to particular relations between Mongolia and Nepal? Since the medieval period, Newars (Nepalese of the Kathmandu Valley) have been renowned throughout the Inner Asian world for their bronze craftsmanship. In the Yuan period (1276–1368), the celebrated Nepalese artist Arniko (Ch. Anige 阿尼哥, ca. 1244–1306) worked at the court of Khubilai Khan (r. 1260–1294), and in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Newar craftsmen worked for Mongol princes and Buddhist dignitaries (Charleux 2015a, 99, 140; Béguin 1993). However, the modern Mongol interest in Boudhanath was not related to this earlier interest in Nepalese craftsmanship. Instead, like the Tibetans, who appropriated the site in the fourteenth century,[24] modern Mongol Buddhists saw Boudhanath as one of the holiest places of the ancient history of Buddhism in India. Tibetans and Mongols undertook pilgrimages to Boudhanath stupa because they believed that it had the “power of granting all prayers for worldly wealth, children, and everything asked for” (Waddell [1895] 1985, 315; Tenzin 1998, 75, 95). Boudhanath was associated with the granting of all kinds of wishes, and worshipping Boudhanath was also an occasion to give back to one’s parents the compassion they had for their children.[25] On a print from Buryatia depicting Boudhanath stupa, a Mongolian inscription at the bottom says that this great stupais like a cintāmaṇi (jewel) that fulfills all wishes (table 2, no. 13).[26] The recently built Jarung khashar in Amarbayasgalant khiid (Cyr. Mo. Amurbayaskhulangtu kheid), Selenge Province, Mongolia (figure 23 and described below), is called “Great stupa of the jewel that grants all wishes.”[27] Similarly, at Chorten Kora in Bhutan, devotees “believe that making prostrations and praying with a pure mind at the festivals will enable them to realize their aspirations in life” (Lam Kezang Chhophel 2002, 4). Boudhanath/Jarung khashar was therefore comparable to the cintāmaṇi that fulfills all wishes.
Mongol Pilgrimages to Boudhanath
Danish explorer Henning Haslund-Christensen (1896–1948), who resided in Mongolia in the 1920s and 1930s, mentioned Boudhanath as a major pilgrimage site for Mongols:
From all the corners of Central Asia [these pilgrims in prostrations] work their ways to the holy places of pilgrimage and the goal may be as remote as Wu-t’ai Shan [Wutaishan] of the many legends, or Dzarung Khashor, the domed pagoda in still more remote Nepal. (Haslund-Christensen 1935, 28)
Except for Bodh Gaya and other holy places in India linked to Śākyamuni’s life, Boudhanath is the farthest pilgrimage destination for Mongols (even more so for Buryat Mongols). Yet despite the dangers of the road, the difficulty of obtaining travel permits, the physical hardship, and the financial cost, an increasing number of Mongol pilgrims (including Buryats and Kalmyks) visited Tibet in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.[28] The pilgrimage to Lhasa was well organized: Khalkhas and Buryats usually joined the two large annual caravans that brought monastic trade missions from Ikh Khüree to Lhasa (Charleux 2015b, 30–39). Their main destination was Lhasa, and only a minority continued their journey to southern Tibet and Kathmandu, and then an even smaller number traveled on to India.[29] A famous pilgrim to Lhasa to Boudhanath was Buryat diplomat monk Agvan Dorjiev (1853–1938), who traveled in 1901 (Martin and Norbu 1991, 24 [translation of Dorjiev’s autobiography, written in 1923]).
Boudhanath appears to have been the main destination of Mongol pilgrims to Nepal; Swayambunath stupa, known in Tibetan as Pakpa shingkün chöten (’Phags pa shing kun mchod rten), and Namo Buddha (Tib. Takmo lüjin/sTag mo lus sbyin]), which were equally important destinations for Tibetans,[30] were much less popular among Mongols. I did not find Mongolian translations of guidebooks to Swayambunath, and Mongols apparently did not build architectural replicas of Swayambunath. Although Swayambunath appears on some thangkas,together with Boudhanath and another stupa on three thangkas(table 2, nos. 22–24), I did not find thangkasdepicting Swayambunath alone.
We have no details on whether Mongol pilgrims visited Boudhanath in greater numbers during the Year of the Bird, which is the most auspicious year to visit the site for Tibetans. Some famous Buddhists restored Boudhanath stupa, but none of them was Mongol.[31] Yet even if historical sources are silent about Mongols in Boudhanath, we know that it was such a holy place for Mongols that some of them settled there. In the 1950s, a Gélukpa reincarnation from Ordos (Inner Mongolia), Gurudeva Rinpoché (1908–2009), also known as Sogpo Rinpoché (Sog po rin po che)—Sogpo meaning “Mongol” in Tibetan—founded a monastery named Ganden Chöphel Ling (dGa’ ldan chos ’phel gling) on the circumambulation path (barkor/bar skor) northeast of Boudhanath. Devotees offered him land to build the monastery, which was staffed by two or three Mongol monks. In the 1960s, when Tibetans took possession of the monastery, Sogpo moved to India (Corneille Jest, personal communication, 2008).[32] He came back to live in his monastery in Boudhanath[33] from 1986 to 1992, after which he left for Mongolia.[34] After his death, a replica of Boudhanath stupa was built in his Mongol monastery (figure 23).
Enthusiastic Mongol pilgrims to Nepal may have decided to make replicas of this particular stupa once back home; yet it seems to me that the flourishing cult of Boudhanath in Mongolia was not proportional to the small number of pilgrims who actually reached that distant place. Pilgrimages to Boudhanath stupa may have developed only after its worship was well established in Mongolia through texts, tales, images, and architectural replicas. In other words, the replicas may have served as surrogate pilgrimage places sites before the original place became easier to reach.
Literary Sources on Boudhanath Accessible to Mongols
Knowledge of the great Buddhist pilgrimage places was transmitted in Tibet and Mongolia through Tibetan culture in general and, more particularly, through Tibetan historiography, biographies of great masters, and guidebooks, as well as oral accounts of pilgrims. Mongol lamas educated in Tibetan learned the story of the construction and legend of Jarung khashor/Boudhanath through various Tibetan sources such as chöjungs, termas, and pilgrimage guides (see Blondeau 1982–1983, 1994).[35] At least two historiographical works written by Mongols—Sagang sechen’s Erdeni-yin tobci (Bejewelled summary, Saγang secen [1662] 1955) and Galdan’s Erdeni-yin erike (Bejewelled rosary, [1859] 1999)—mention the legend of Jarung khashor, without identifying it with Boudhanath (see Appendix 1).
The main source of the legend of Jarung khashor is the abovementioned Tibetan guidebook, History of the stupa Jarung khashor, liberation upon hearing. In the 1880s, pilgrims could purchase a contemporaneous printed version of the guidebook at Boudhanath (Ehrhard 1990, 1).[36] The guidebook was translated into Mongolian and is known under the title “Legend of the [stupa] known as Jarung khashor.” At least four manuscripts in the format of ancient Indian pothi (palm-leaf books) are preserved.[37] According to its colophon, it was translated into Mongolian by a gelung (Tib. gélong/dge slong, ordained monk) named Shirab or Shisrab, and published in the Year of the Water Dragon (1772, 1832, or 1892).[38] A xylograph printed version preserved in Aga (Aginskii) datsan (monastery) in Buryatia also still exists. The latter has been adapted into modern Mongolian and transcribed into Cyrillic and is included in a booklet about Boudhanath stupa and one of its Mongolian replicas (Ninjbadgar 2000).[39]
The guidebook tells the story of the construction of the stupa (chapter 1) and the foundation of Samyé Monastery by the reincarnations of the poultry keeper’s sons as King Trison Détsen, Śāntarakṣita, and Padmasambhava (Ninjbadgar 2000, 19–20). Chapter 3 (on the blessings produced by worshipping the stupa, according to the types of worship and offerings), chapter 4 (on the portents of the ruin of the stupa, which was destroyed during the troubled times of the Kali yuga), and chapter 5 (on the restorers and their attainments) deal with the later history of Tibet. The only mention of the Mongols in this text is in chapter 4, which relates the history of the Mongols’ conquest of Tibet (Dowman [1973] 1993, 55).[40] The guidebook does not contain any description or architectural detail of Jarung khashor.
This guidebook belongs to the category of tödröl (thos drol, “liberation upon hearing”), which means that the fact of reciting, hearing, memorizing, and understanding it leads to Enlightenment.[41] It is a Tibetan means of instructing people along the spiritual path toward the attainment of complete realization (the stupa being itself a symbol of Buddhahood) (Dowman [1973] 1993, 3–5).
The translation into Mongolian and existence of different manuscripts and printed versions highlight the popularity of Boudhanath among laypeople; the book not only informed future pilgrims about the sacred place but also served as an object of worship per se, a surrogate of the pilgrimage, and a means of “liberation upon hearing.” According to Ninjbadgar, other Tibetan and Mongolian prayer books on Boudhanath stupa were printed in Mongolia (2000, 1).
Architectural Replicas from the Eighteenth to the First Half of the Twentieth Centuries
Most of the ancient architectural replicas of Boudhanath in Mongolia were destroyed during the twentieth century; they are known to us thanks to photographs, a few mentions in the literature, and the souvenirs of elderly monks. Unfortunately, although the building of temples and colleges is generally recorded and dated in monastic sources and archives, this is rarely the case for the construction of stupas. In this section, I present information, mostly based on historical and iconographical sources, about five “Jarung khashar” stupas in Mongolia and one in China, from the eighteenth to the first half of the twentieth centuries.
(1) The oldest replica I came across was not located in Mongolia but at a great Chinese pilgrimage site that attracted Mongols, Tibetans, and Chinese: the Wutaishan Mountains in Shanxi Province. The stupa is located in Baohuasi 寶華寺, an old Chinese Buddhist monastery that was turned into a Tibetan Gélugpa (dGe lugs pa) monastery in 1719 (Charleux 2015b, online appendix B, Baohuasi). The 9-meter-high Tibetan-style stupa known as “Dīpankara’s Mother” or “Stupa That Came Flying” (Ch. Feilaita 飛來塔)[42] is believed to enshrine a lock of the hair of Tsongkhapa (Tsong kha pa, 1357–1419). In his guidebook to Mount Wutai, Rölpé Dorjé wrote that lama pilgrims renovated the stupa on the model of Boudhanath stupa in Kathmandu (Charleux, 2015b, online appendix B). In 1873, the monastery was restored and the monks rebuilt the white stupa. A stone inscription in Tibetan and Mongolian, written by a disciple of the Sixth Panchen Lama, Lozang Penden Yéshé (bLo bzang dpal ldan ye shes, 1891–1958) who meditated on Mount Wutai, also links the stupa with Boudhanath stupa in Kathmandu (see Charleux 2015b, online appendices A2 and B). The stupa of Baohuasi has been preserved and restored (figure 3).
Figure 3. “Dīpankara’s Mother” stupa of Baohuasi, Wutaishan, Shanxi Province, China, 2010. Photo by the author.
(2) The first architectural replica in Mongolia probably was the “Jarun khashor-un suburga” (stupa of Jarun khashor)of Khan öndriin khüree (Cl. Mo. Khan öndör-ün khuriye) about 96 kilometers from Tsetserleg, north of the Tamir River in Ikh Tamir District, in Arkhangai Province. Khan öndriin khüree had about thirty temples and a dozen stupas, surrounded by housing for about one thousand monks and novices. It was founded by several generations of the Noyan tsetsen ching wangs (title of the jasags—Chinggisid princes ruling their eponym banners) of the Sayin noyan khan aimag. Tsetsen ching wang Denjin banzur (Den toin) founded the first temples in 1679, then, in 1809, new temples were built by Tsetsen ching wang Lawangdorji (1749–1816, jasag in 1771). The monastery is therefore a “princely monastery,” tightly tied to the secular power of the jasags. It received titles from the Qing emperor and the Jebtsündamba Khutugtus. As one of the largest monasteries of Mongolia, it trained monks from all of Khalkha aimags (provinces) in its academic colleges. The monastery was closed in 1932 and razed to the ground in 1937 or 1938 (Ninjbadgar 2000, 55–64; Maidar [1970] 1972, 32–33; Shchepetil’nikov 1960, 162).[43]
Ninjbadgar documented the history of the construction of nineteen temples (including academic colleges) but did not find any detail on the construction of the “Jarun khashor suvraga” (Cl. Mo. suburga, “stupa”) (figures 3–6).[44] In 1857, khoshoi ching wang Daram founded the Suburgan-u takhil-un khural (Assembly to make sacrifices/offerings to the stupa),[45] which may refer to the rituals organized in the “Jarung khashar” stupa (Ninjbadgar 2000, 59–63). Therefore, the date of construction of the stupa may be 1857.
Figure 4. “Jarung khashar” stupa, Khan öndriin khüree, Ikh Tamir District, Arkhangai Province (destroyed). Photo taken before 1937. Source: Tsultem (1988, fig. 157).
According to a ninety-six-year-old lama named Damtsaabadgar, who was a pupil at Khan öndriin khüree before its destruction, the founders intended to build the Eight Great Stupas of the Buddha (referring to the eight major events of Śākyamuni’s life and teachings) and another large stupa. For a long time, they collected many images (jirug) of stupas in order to choose one, and eventually selected Boudhanath stupa in Nepal (Ninjbadgar 2000, 61).
Figure 5. “Jarung khashar” stupa, Khan öndriin khüree. Photo taken before 1937. Source: Shchepetil’nikov (1960, 162, fig. 97).Figure 6. General view of Khan öndriin khüree. Photo taken before 1937. Source: Tsultem (1988, fig. 136).Figure 7. “Jarung khashar” stupa near Gandantegchilen Monastery of Ikh Khüree (Ulaanbaatar, destroyed). Photo taken in 1934. Sources: Tsultem (1988, fig. 159) and Shchepetil’nikov (1960, 167, fig. 102).
(3) A replica of Boudhanath stupa was erected near the great academic monastery of Gandan (short for Gandantegchinlin) west of Ikh Khüree/Ulaanbaatar (figure 7).[46] The “Jarung khashar” stupa, built at some distance northwest of the monastery, was surrounded by a fence and dedicated to the glory of the incarnation of the Buddha. Other stupas built by devotees (including the Eight Great Stupas of the Buddha) were nearby. The place was certainly a main object of devotion for the many pilgrims who circumambulated Gandan,[47] though whether it formed a separate temple or was part of Gandan itself is unclear (Teleki 2011, 190). Krisztina Teleki, a specialist on Mongolian monasteries, writes, “According to Gonchig lama, 3–4 lamas held ceremonies regularly in the treasure-vase hall (Mo. bumba, Tib. bum-pa) of this stupa, and this was called the Tsagaan suwragiin khural” (Tsagan suburga-yin khural, Monastery/Assembly of the White Stupa) (2011, 190). Gandan Monastery was founded in 1809 but became a main monastic center in 1838 (Teleki 2011, 162), and the “Jarung khashar” stupa appears on Balgan’s and Jügder’s maps, respectively dated to the 1880s–1890s and 1912 (figure 8). The stupacan therefore roughly be dated to the late nineteenth century. According to another source, construction ended in 1905 and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, Tupten Gyatso (Thub bstan rgya mtsho, 1876–1933), consecrated it while sojourning in the capital.[48] It was destroyed in the late 1930s, and a television tower was built on its site in 1967.
Figure 8. “Jirangqašar-yin suburγa” near Gandantegchilen Monastery. Detail of Balgan’s map of Ikh Khüree, 1880s, Zanabazar Museum of Fine Arts, Ulaanbaatar. Photo by the author.
(4) Another Jarung khashar may have been built northeast of Dambadarjaa khiid (Cl. Mo. Damba dorji kheid or Shasin-i badaragulugchi süme), northeast of Ikh Khüree (now in a suburb of Ulaanbaatar) (Daajav 2006, 2:121–131; Teleki 2011, 241–252). Dambadarjaa khiid was built in 1761–1765 on Emperor Qianlong’s order in memory of the Second Jebtsündamba Khutugtu (1724–1758). It had colleges with a high level of learning and more than one thousand monks in the 1910s. Funerary stupas enshrined the relics of the Second, Third, and Sixth Jebtsündamba Khutugtus. According to historian of architecture D. Maidar, the Jarung khashar of Dambadarjaa khiid was surrounded by the Eight Great Stupas of the Buddha ([1970] 1972, 32–33). Daajav wrote that it was located northeast of the monastery, outside the compound, but does not specify his source (2006, 2:126, 129; quoted in Teleki 2011, 242). It was probably destroyed at the same time as the rest of the monastery in 1937 and 1938, and it was rebuilt from 2003 to 2004 (figures 9 and 10). Although several old photos of the monastery are known, none of them shows the Jarung khashar,[49] and it is not visible on ancient maps such as Jügder’s.[50] The rebuilt stupa seems to have been modeled on an old photo of Gandan’s Jarung khashar, but its spire is square-based whereas Gandan’s was round-based (figure 10).
Figure 9. “Jarung khashar” stupa, rebuilt from 2003 to 2004, northeast of Dambadarjaa khiid (suburb of Ulaanbaatar), 2013. Photo by the author.Figure 10. “Jarung khashar” stupa, northeast of Dambadarjaa khiid, partially rebuilt stupa and drawings exhibited during the reconstruction, 2003. Photos by Sue Byrne, 2013.
(5) A “Jarung khashar” stupa was built in Üüshin juu or Ganjuur nom-un süme (Kanjur Monastery, Ch. Wushenzhao 烏審召) in the Üüshin Banner of Ordos. Üüshin juu was founded by a Tibetan lama from Amdo named Nangsu in the 1570s and was rebuilt around 1713. In 1734, Üüshin juu became the “banner monastery” of the fifth jasag, beise Rashisereng, who enlarged it. In 1764, Lubsang dorji laramba (d. ca. 1801), a Khalkha lama trained in Lhasa, became the abbot. The main icons of the monastery were two sandalwood statues of Śākyamuni he had brought back from Kumbum (sKu ’bum) in Amdo. Four colleges were founded in the eighteenth century, and Üüshin juu became a large academic monastery of 1,200 monks and four reincarnate lamas, with twenty-five temples and more than ten treasuries. It was famous for its three large stupas and 108 (or 206) smaller ones, many of which were funerary stupas enclosed by a wall (Narasun and Temürbaγatur 2000, 233–239, 269–300; Delege 1998, 372–373, 629–333; Charleux 2006b, CD-ROM [track no. 60]). The monastery was partially destroyed during the Cultural Revolution and was rebuilt from 1999 to 2000.
Figure 11. “Octagonal lama stupa,” Üüshin juu (Ganjuur nom-un süme), Üüshin Banner, Ordos League, Inner Mongolia. Photo taken before 1959. Source: Zhang (1959, 51).
The three large stupas included the Gegeen suburga built in 1773 and the “octagonal stupa” built on the model of Boudhanath stupa, of which we have a photo taken before 1959 (figure 11). The twelfth (and last) jasag of Üüshin Banner, Tegüs amugulang, had it erected at the request of the Ninth Panchen Lama, to bring peace and happiness to the whole banner. Lamas from Üüshin juu undertook a three-year journey to Nepal to study the architecture of Boudhanath and came back with drawings and sketches (Delege 1998, 633).[51] The stupa was built between 1934 and 1942, northwest of Üüshin juu (figure 12). The perimeter of its round base measured 25 zhang 丈 (80 meters), it stood 7 zhang high (22.4 meters), and its construction cost more than 300,000 silver yuan. It was partially destroyed during the Cultural Revolution. Between 1999 and 2001, it was restored or rebuilt according to its former outer appearance. The restored stupa has a large vaulted room inside (figures 13 and 14).[52]
Figure 12. Painting depicting Üüshin juu, kept in the monastery. The “Jarung khashar” stupa is visible in the upper left corner. Photo by Agata Bareja-Starzyńska, August 2013.Figure 13 (left). Restored stupa of Üüshin juu. Photo by Agata Bareja-Starzyńska, August 2013. Figure 14 (right). Interior of the restored stupa of Üüshin juu, similar to the inner chamber of the Tabun suburga/Mahabodhi of Hohhot. Photo by Agata Bareja-Starzyńska, August 2013.
(6) A large “Jarung khashar” stupa was built between 1915 and 1919 near Khejenge datsan (Cl. Mo. Khotun Khijingge-yin Dashi lhundubling; Russ. Kizhinga), now in Kizhinginsky District, Buryatia. Khejenge datsan was founded in 1766; the stupa was completely destroyed in 1937 along with the monastery, and it is not even possible to determine its exact location. It was the most worshipped stupaof Buryatia (Bĕlka 2001, 167–172). The decision was made to rebuild it in its original shape near the alleged original site, with a height of 33 meters, a surface area of 44 x 44 meters, and a 16-meter-high inner chamber with an area of 22 x 22 meters. In 1990, Drukpa Rinpoché (’Brug pa rin po che) from Nepal visited and consecrated the future site, and construction started in 1991, but the work was interrupted due to financial difficulties. The stupa was eventually built between 1999 and 2001 on a more modest scale, at a height of only 12 meters, with a surface area of 12 x 12 meters and an inner chamber with an area of 10 x 10 meters (figure 15). On the south side of the main entrance are a small temple to bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara (on the right) and a temple to the Twenty-One Tārās (on the left).[53]
Figure 15. Rebuilt “Jarung khashar” stupa of Khejenge Monastery, Kizhinga, Buryatia. Photo by Ekaterina Sundueva.
Table 1. The “Jarung khashar”stupas listed in chronological order
All of the abovementioned Mongol replicas of Boudhanath were built in or near large academic monasteries and were considered as separate units, often located northeast of a monastic complex. But what are the architectural characteristics that make them “replicas” of Boudhanath stupa? We are speaking here about the aspects of Boudhanath in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which are known to us mostly thanks to photographs.[54]
An initial observation is that some of the Mongol replicas had an inner shrine, whereas the Nepalese Boudhanath stupa is a solid structure with no room inside. The “Jarung khashar” stupas of Gandan and Khan öndriin khüree were called khural. Khural, meaning “assembly, ritual, religious service,” also designates a monastery or a temple, especially in Ikh Khüree; here it seems to designate a stupawith an inner chamber to hold assemblies. These two stupas may thus have served as a temple for specific rituals. The Jarung khashar of Üüshin juu had a gate (perhaps to an inner shrine) protected by a Chinese-style portico topped by a reduced stupa (figure 11), and the restored/reconstructed stupa has a large vaulted room inside (figure 14). The rebuilt stupas of Dambadarjaa khiid (figure 9) and Khejenge datsan also have an inner shrine (figure 15), but nowadays there is a trend in Tibet and Southeast Asia to build hollow stupas with a shrine inside to exhibit statues and relics.[55]
Zsuzsa Majer, a specialist on Mongolian monasteries, hypothesizes that there must have been more Jarun khashor stupas in Mongolia, though evidence in the form of pictures or remnants is not lacking, because
Tsagaan suwragiin khural was a name for several other countryside monasteries (presumably all with a big white stupa), for example one in Dundgow’ we surveyed, but no one can confirm now if they had Jarun khashor type of stupas, or other type of stupas painted in white (all we know of the above Dundgow’ stupa is that it was an arched type—could even be Jarun khashor). (Zsuzsa Majer, email message to author, April 22, 2015)
Let us now compare the architecture of Boudhanath with that of the Mongol and Chinese replicas from bottom to top:
— Boudhanath stupa, about 40 meters in height and diameter,[56] is one of the largest stupas in the world (about twice the size of the Great stupa of Sanchi in India). An old photograph of Khan öndriin khüree shows the Jarung khashar overlooking the surrounding temples (figure 4). According to local elders, its “foot” (floor surface) was the size of a six-walled (Cyr. Mo. khana) yurt; it was 15 to 20 meters high; its pedestal or lion’s throne (sentii) probably measured 400 square meters (Ninjbadgar 2000, 62). The Jarung khashar of Üüshin juu may have been 22.4 meters high; that of Gandan was probably shorter, yet it was much larger than the surrounding stupas.
— Boudhanath stupa has its main entrance on the northern side, whereas the “Jarung khashar” stupas of Mongolia and Inner Mongolia were oriented toward the south, as is typical of Mongol temples.
— The three successive twelve-cornered terraced platforms or plinths of diminishing size on which Boudhanath stupa rests,[57] which are used as circumambulatory passages, and the flights of stairs giving access to each successive tier were not copied in the Mongol replicas. All the Mongol stupas have a square base, except that of Üüshin juu, which superposes three octagonal bases of recessing size.
— Four smaller stupas stand at the four corners of the “Jarung khashar” stupas of Khan öndriin khüree,[58] (modern) Dambadarjaa khiid, and Baohuasi, and eight stupas form a square around the “Jarung khashar” of Gandan.[59] At Boudhanath, four small stupas stand at the four intermediate directions of the lower platform, and two additional small stupas stand at the northern side’s main entrance, but these four stupas are so small and different from the central stupa that they are almost unnoticeable.
— In front of the “Jarung khashar” of Khan öndriin khüree, two small niches with tiled eaves probably protected an icon. Two pavilions with round, arched openings and tiled roofs stand in front of the Gandan stupa. As we will see below, these probably replicated two shrines that existed at Boudhanath in the nineteenth century (Czaja 2015, 92).[60]
— The shape of the aṇḍa (vase shape, Tib. bum pa, Mo. khomkha or bumba, “main body of the stupa”) of all the “Jarung khashar” stupas of Mongolia differs from the hemispherical shape of the aṇḍa ofBoudhanath stupa, but it is also systematically different from the aṇḍa of “bottle-shaped” Tibetan-style stupas. The shape of the aṇḍa of the “Jarung khashar” of Gandan is cylindrical; the aṇḍa of the stupaof Khan öndriin khüree has a slender, elongated shape that resembles that of the bell-shaped nirvanastupa(one of the Eight Great Stupas of the Buddha) (Maidar [1970] 1972, 32). The aṇḍa of the stupaof Üüshin juu is a reduced hemispherical dome that looks like a cupola on the third octagonal level. The octagonal shape may be a reference to the base of the stupaof reconciliation (another of the Eight Great Stupas of the Buddha). The stairs leading to the harmikā (square part at the spire’s base, Cl. Mo. suulga) of Boudhanath stupa were not replicated in the Mongol stupas.
— The “Jarung khashar” stupa of Khan öndriin khüree has a very large niche (Cl. Mo. ger-ün üüde, “door”) projecting from the main face with a pointed-arch opening that resembles the iwan’s arched gateway[61] of Islamic architecture; inside the niche one can distinguish a wooden door that may have opened to an inner shrine. The interruption in the rows of small niches on the tiered round and square platforms below the niche may indicate the presence of a staircase giving access to the inner shrine. On the Gandan stupa, a central projecting niche has the same shape as the tiled pavilions at the foot of the stupa, with a rounded-arch opening and tiled eaves;[62] it may also have been the entrance to an inner shrine. The reconstructed stupaof Dambadarjaa khiid has an inner shrine that opens with a double-panel door (figure 9). It has a rounded-arch decoration with the symbol of the Kālacakra, and sculpted vajras[63] around its aṇḍa. The presence of this large niche, which is missing in the aṇḍa of Boudhanath stupa, may be explained, as we will see, by two-dimensional images of Boudhanath.
— Two rows of small niches (for icons, perhaps) pierce the aṇḍa below the large niche of the Jarung khashar of Khan öndriin khüree, and two other rows pierce the square platforms (figures 4 and 5). The reduced aṇḍa of the stupaof Üüshin juu is pierced by twenty-four niches. This row of niches is a distinctive feature of Boudhanath stupa: just above the base of the dome, encircling its entire periphery is a series of 108 recessed niches, each enshrining a sculpture of a Buddhist deity.[64]
— Pairs of eyes are painted and/or carved on the four faces of the harmikā[65] of the Mongol stupas and of Baohuasi. This is the main characteristic that links the Mongol “Jarung khashar” stupas to Boudhanath stupa.[66] In the Tibetan world, many stupas that have no connection with Boudhanath stupa have painted eyes,[67] but in Mongolia, the only stupas with eyes were “Jarung khashar” stupas. As in Boudhanath, the Jarung khashar of Gandan also had the nose symbol resembling a question mark. Whose eyes are they? The eyes and curved nose-mark on the harmikā of Boudhanath stupa are said to be the eyes of the ādibuddha (primordial buddha of Vajrayāna Buddhism) symbolizing Enlightenment; it is believed that they are self-emanating (Snodgrass 1985, 361). People at Dambadarjaa khiid say the stupa has the eyes of Avalokiteśvara. The eyes on the Jarung khashar of Khejenge are said to symbolize the all-seeing eyes of Buddha, who is ready to help at any time (“Stupa Djarun-Khashor”). It is said that by praying and looking at the eyes of the recently built Jarung khashar of Amarbayasgalant khiid, one gets rid of his or her sins.[68]
— Except for the Gandan stupa, which had a round-based spire, the stupas have the square-based spire (Skt. chattra, Cl. Mo. choingkhor) that is characteristic of Boudhanath stupa.
— Whereas “traditional” Tibetan stupas are topped by the moon, the sun, and a flame, all the Mongol “Jarung khashar” stupas, similar to Boudhanath, are crowned with a ganjir (treasure vase),[69] which looks like a miniature stupa.
The eighteenth-centurystupa of Baohuasi differs from the rest of our corpus, yet although it may not be immediately detectable to an untrained eye, its architecture shares the basic characteristics that allow us to identify a replica of Boudhanath stupa: the four smaller stupas in the corners, the row of Buddha images at the base of its aṇḍa, the eyes on the harmikā, the square-based spire, and the ganjir on its summit.
To summarize, the Mongol “Jarung khashar” stupas were separate objects of worship within Mongol monasteries, and some of them may have had an inner chamber. Their common characteristics were their large size, the eyes decorating the harmikā, an aṇḍa with a slender or cylindrical shape (but always different from the bottle shape) with small niches for images at its base and a large central niche that could serve as the entrance to an inner shrine, and a ganjir pinnacle. Four or eight smaller stupas surrounded them. The Jarung khashar closest to Boudhanath is that of Khan öndriin khüree. Many of the characteristics of Boudhanath were not “translated” to Mongolia, such as the platforms with recessing shapes and the surrounding walls with prayer wheels.[70] Even if the Mongol “Jarung khashar” stupas do not exactly “respect the program” of Boudhanath, they are clearly differentiated, by their architectural characteristics and size, from the other types of Mongol stupas. This is what Wood, writing about medieval European architectural replicas, calls the “principle of negative differentiation”: “It did not matter how…closely it [the program] was respected, so long as the resulting building was sufficiently differentiated from another building that belonged to a different token family, or to no token family” (2008, 45).[71] Wood stresses that though the resemblance to the original is not always perceivable to modern eyes and minds, which have at their disposal photographs of the building of reference, in an earlier time minimum criteria of resemblance sufficed to transmit the essence of the prime building. These selected criteria “reveal to modern observers which aspects of building a historical culture considered most important” (2008, 44).
The Media: Paintings and Prints
How did Mongols know about the architecture of Boudhanath? Because the guidebook to Boudhanath does not contain any physical descriptions of the stupa, it was of no use in making replicas. Knowledge of the stupa’s architecture may have been transmitted instead by paintings, xylograph prints, and scale models. As mentioned earlier, the Jarung khashar of Khan öndriin khüree was modeled on an “image,” and lamas from Üüshin juu traveled to South Asia to study and make sketches of the “original.”[72] Similarly, during the eighteenth century, the founder of Chorten Kora in Bhutan set out on a journey to Boudhanath and returned home with a model of the stupa that had been quickly made out of radish. “By the time they arrived home the radish model had shrunk distorting the shape. As a result, the stupa or chorten, particularly the one at Teashi [sic] Yangtse, underwent some changes in design especially in the level of galleries” (Lam Kezang Chhophel 2002, 2–3). The story of the deterioration of the media—here, a radish—may, of course, have been invented to justify the replica’s differences from its model.
Scale models of Boudhanath stupa were kept in monasteries of Eastern Tibet and Mongolia (Czaja 2015, 91 and figs. 7 and 8) (figure 16),[73] but paintings and xylograph prints were much more common (see table 2).[74] Do the inaccuracies of these paintings and prints explain, as in the case of the Chengde temples, some of the characteristics of the architectural replicas? Conversely, some of the two-dimensional images may have been made after a Mongol architectural replica. Because none of these paintings and prints are dated,[75] we have no answer to this question, but this may have been the case with thangka no. 13 (table 2). This print that shows Jarung khashar with many small stupas on its terraces may have served as a model for the recent reconstruction of the Jarung khashar of Khejenge, of which apparently no ancient image is known (figure 15).
Figure 16. “Am-aldasan [Ama aldasan] stupamade by silver casting and hammering,” MIBA collection, Ulaanbaatar. Source: Pürevbat (2005, 376, fig. 245).
Table 2 presents a few examples of Mongol paintings and prints divided into four categories: (1) paintings depicting Boudhanath with some of its characteristic features (figure 17); (2) xylograph prints from Buryatia depicting Boudhanath (figure 18); (3) prints depicting a bottle-shaped Tibetan stupawith Avalokiteśvara, with a text that refers to Jarung khashar (figure 19); and (4) prints depicting Boudhanath along with other stupas (figures 20 and 21).[76] Several prints come from the same matrix (table 2).
These thangkas have a few common characteristics. First of all, several of the prints include in their lower registers a Tibetan text briefly describing the legend of the foundation of Boudhanath and its religious significance and have mantras written in Tibetan, Mongolian, and/or Lantsa[77] on the terraces and/or below the stupa(table 2, nos. 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24). Typically, in East Asia, the making of xylograph printed images with a prayer at the bottom, distributed or sold to devotees, reflects the great worship of a holy site. These cheap, mass-produced prints were distributed or sold on pilgrimage sites; devotees used to worship them on their home altar, or fold them (figure 21) and use them as amulets in portable reliquaries that were carried to bring good luck and fulfill wishes. These prints were kept in laypeople’s homes for private worship and were usually circulated more than thangkas.[78]
Figure 17. Thangka, 72 x 109 cms, Zanabazar Museum of Fine Arts, no. 8125-2968. Source: Fleming and Shastri (2011, 1, cat. 435).Figure 18. Large colored print depicting “Jarung khashar” stupa, Buryatia. Private collection of Michel Tournet, France. Photo by the author.
The prayer below the large prints nos. 9 and 10 in table 2 (figure 18) summarizes the story of Boudhanath stupa (see Appendix 2), lists the immediate and long-term benefits generated in making this print, and advises those who want to learn more details about the history of this stupato consult the karchak (dkar chag, i.e., the guidebook), which “liberates upon hearing” it. Interestingly, the stupa is located in “the region of Makuti” (perhaps Magadha in India) “in Nepal,” thus conflating the two different locations of pre- and post-fourteenth-century Tibetan sources. The last sentence says that it has been printed at “Ago’i chos sde chen mo bde chen lhun grubs gling” (i.e., Aga datsan in Buryatia)—the same monastery where the guidebook was printed. The prayer of print no. 24 (table 2), which aimed at increasing benefits and merit, is a request (or petition) addressed to Boudhanath, and specifies that it was also printed at Aga datsan.[79] Most of these prints appear to have been made in Mongol monasteries, at least ten of them in Buryatia. There also exist Nepalese and Tibetan thangkas depicting Boudhanath stupa,[80] and some of the Mongol prints and paintings may have taken a Nepalese, Tibetan, or Mongol thangka as a model: we can imagine a multiplicity of intermediate media copying each other.
Most of the thangkas depict Boudhanath stupa surrounded by four smaller stupas on its first and third platforms, eyes and sometimes a nose on the harmikā, decorations on the aṇḍa, and a miniature stupaon top. They usually have three terraces of diminishing sizes plus two levels with curved angles, the upper one being decorated with niches containing buddhas (table 2, nos. 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 14–17); or a Sumeru base supporting three terraces of diminishing sizes (nos. 4, 9–12). Thangka no. 6 of table 2 has five levels or terraces with curved angles standing on a Sumeru base. Offerings to the five senses, as well as a deer and an elephant (perhaps referring to the elephant of the story), are often depicted in the lower register.
In most images, two symmetrical shrines stand on the first terrace. The shape of the roof in thangkas nos. 4 and 9 to 12 (table 2) is different—conical on the left, curved on the right—which seems to correspond to the two pavilions in front of Boudhanath stupa that existed more than a hundred and fifty years ago (Czaja 2015, fig. 1). But in thangkas nos. 1 and 2, 5–8, and 14–17 (table 2), these are two symmetrical Chinese-style tiled pavilions, like at the “Jarung khashar” stupas of Khan öndriin khüree and Gandan. Inside these shrines are depicted, or designated by their names and mantras, four-armed Avalokiteśvara (on one side) and Vajrapāṇi or Padmasambhava (on the other side); we do not know the identity of the deities in the pavilions of the architectural replicas. In several thangkas, a central flight of steps or a ramp giving access to the great niche is decorated with bricks or geometrical motifs. Some stupas are raised on a Sumeru pedestal decorated at its center with a tapestry with golden motifs or a Chinese-style dragon that evokes a carpet or a marble ramp of Beijing’s Forbidden City (table 2, nos. 4, 6, 9–12).
The aṇḍaof the stupas in thangkas nos 4, 9–13, and 21–24 of table 2 reproduces Boudhanath’s hemispherical shape.[81] Others have a round or bell-like shape. On the embroidered thangka in the Rubin Museum of Art (table 2, no. 3), the aṇḍahas a more elongated shape recalling that of the Gandan stupa. In some prints, the aṇḍalooks like that of bottle-shaped Tibetan stupas (figure 19 and table 2, nos. 14–17): only the Tibetan inscription that gives a brief history of Boudhanath allows us to identify them with the Nepalese stupa.
Figure 19. Print on cotton depicting “Jarung khashar” stupa. Private collection of Michel Tournet, France. Photo by the author.
Another particularity of the two-dimensional images is that most of them depict Eleven-Faced (ekadaśamukha) Mahākarunika Avalokiteśvara in the large niche of their aṇḍa(in only in one case, no. 8 of table 2, Avalokiteśvara is replaced by Uṣṇīṣavijayā, who is traditionally depicted inside a stupa). The deity was probably thought to reside inside the aṇḍa, but in two-dimensional media he or she is represented in front of the aṇḍa, and his or her halo or mandorla looks like a large niche (figure 17). It is possible that the halo of the architectural replicas modeled on paintings and prints was understood as being a niche carved in the aṇḍaor even an inner shrine containing an image of Avalokiteśvara (there is no such large niche in the aṇḍaof Boudhanath). We can make the hypothesis that the large niche or inner shrine of the Mongol architectural replicas enshrined an image of this bodhisattva.[82]
Why is Eleven-Faced Avalokiteśvara depicted in these thangkas? At the beginning of the “Legend of the [stupa] known as Jarung khashor” guidebook, Avalokiteśvara sheds two tears when he realizes that it is not possible to save all living beings, and the two teardrops are transmuted into two daughters of King Indra. One of the daughters is reincarnated as the poultry woman at the origin of the construction of the stupa. The text of thangkas nos. 10 and 11 (table 2, figure 9, and Appendix 2) simplifies the story, since it presents the poultry keeper Jadzima as the reincarnation of Avalokiteśvara.However, in Nepal and Tibet, Boudhanath stupa is not associated with Avalokiteśvara; the presence of Eleven-Faced Avalokiteśvara seems to be a Mongol specificity. The bodhisattva of compassion was worshipped especially in several monasteries that had a “Jarung khashar” stupa: Dambadarjaa khiid was famous for a sandalwood statue of Avalokiteśvara Lokeśvara (Cl. Mo. Logshir); and in Gandan the Migjid janraiseg Temple, built in 1911–1913, housed a 25-meter statue of Eye-Healing Avalokiteśvara (Migjid janraiseg).
It is likely that the images coming from Khalkha Mongolia (table 2, nos. 14–20 and figure 19) as well as thangka no. 2 (table 2) showing Boudhanath as a bottle-shaped stupawith four smaller stupas at the corners, three platforms and a staircase, two identical pavilions with a Chinese tiled roof, and a large image of Eleven-Faced Avalokiteśvara in the central niche served as models for the architectural replica of Gandan Monastery (figure 7).
Images 21 to 24 show Boudhanath stupa with one or two other stupas: Swayambunath and the stupaof Dhānyakaṭaka[83] in India, or Namo Buddha), the Stupa of the Offering of the Body to the Tigress, on the site in Nepal where in a previous life, Śākyamuni is said to have have offered his body to the tigress according to a well-known Jataka (figures 20 and 21). On prints nos. 22 and 23 (table 2 and figure 20), the central stupaisidentified as Swayambhūnāth and Boudhanath is depicted on the right side; it has no eyes and its harmikā is decorated with the same crown as that of Swayambunath. Because of the presence of the five animals raised by the Mongols (the “five muzzles”), these images may have functioned as protective amulets.
Figure 20. Print depicting Swayambunath (center), the stupaof Dhānyakaṭaka, and Boudhanath, above the five Mongol “muzzles.” Private collection of Michel Tournet, France. Photo by the author.Figure 21. Print depicting Boudhanath (center), Pakpa shingkün chorten (’Phags pa shing kun mchod rten—i.e., Swayambunath) (left) and Takmo lüjin (right). Printed at Aga datsan. Source: Private collection, Russia.[84]
To summarize, the transmission of the architectural knowledge of Boudhanath stupa through block prints and paintings explains the presence of not only the well-known characteristics of the original, such as the eyes on the harmikā, but also some interpretations and additions, such as the slender or cylindrical shape of the aṇḍa, the four smaller stupas, the large central niche, and the transformation of the platforms of the Mongol Jarung khashar. They allow us to make hypotheses about the iconography in the central niche or inner shrine (perhaps Avalokiteśvara) and in the two lateral pavilions of the architectural replicas.
Interestingly, two different modern drawings of Boudhanath published in the monumental study of stupasby the great Mongolian monk-artist Pürevbat[85] repeat some of the characteristics seen in thangkas: one has a large central niche piercing the aṇḍa; the second has the crown of Swayambhunath. Both of them have five platforms instead of three, and four smaller stupasstand on the two lower platforms (figure 22).
Figure 22. Two drawings of “Am-aldsan [Ama aldasan] stupa at Boudhanath, Kathmandu, Nepal.” Source: Pürevbat (2005, 169 and 526, fig. 352).
Twenty-First-Century Replicas of Jarung Khashar
More than ten years after Buddhism was revived in the postcommunist societies of Mongolia, China, and Buryatia, the stupasof Dambadarjaa khiid, Üüshin juu, and Khejenge Monastery were rebuilt or restored. In addition, two new “Jarung khashar” stupas were constructed: a huge stupa named Ama aldasan in Mongolia, popularly known as the “stupa with eyes,” was erected thanks to donations from many devotees and consecrated in July 2010; it is located on a hill above Amarbayasgalant khiid, not far from the Russian border (figure 23). Nearby on the hill, the mantras of the three main bodhisattvas—Avalokiteśvara, Mañjuśrī, and Vajrapāṇi—are spelled out in white stones. This new construction was built in honor of Gurudeva (Sogpo) Rinpoché: after he left his monastery near Boudhanath in 1992, he became the abbot of Amarbayasgalant khiid, which he restored aided by fundraising. The Jarung khashar was built just after Sogpo Rinpoché—a major figure of the revival of Buddhism in Mongolia—passed away. Nowadays a few wealthy pilgrims from Ulaanbaatar make special pilgrimages to Boudhanath and visit the monastery of Gurudeva Rinpoché.[86]
In 2012, Pürevbat built a similar stupa, called the Kālacakra stupa, on a hill in the Gobi Desert of Dornogovi Province, Mongolia. It is 46 meters high and 90 meters in diameter (the width of the lower platform)—even larger than Boudhanath stupa, but its name does not make any reference to Jarung khashar (Sue Byrne, personal communication, 2017).[87] It is not clear why it is called Kālacakra. That symbol is also seen on the modern stupas of Dambadarjaa khiid and Wutaishan’s Baohuasi, and it often decorates Mongol temples and stupas.
The architecture of the rebuilt stupas of Dambadarjaa khiid and Üüshin juu make an attempt at faithfulness not only to old photographs but also to peoples’ memories—a new element in the chain of replications. The new stupas of Amarbayasgalant khiid and Dornogovi Province are much closer to the Boudhanath stupa, in their monumentality and general shape. This is also the case of another replica of the Nepalese stupa built in the 1990s in Lungngön (Lung sngon) Monastery, Golok (mGo log) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Amdo (northeastern Tibet, now in Qinghai Province, China), which is slightly larger than the original. Nearby are replicas of Samyé Monastery, of the Mahabodhi Temple of Bodh Gaya and other Buddhist sites in India and Tibet. As shown by Buffetrille (2015), the construction of such replicas is a new phenomenon in Tibet.[88] The founder of Lungngön Monastery, Kusum Lingpa (sKu gsum gling pa, 1934–2009), is affiliated with the rimé (ris med) nonsectarian movement.[89] This replica of Boudhanath has an inner shrine that contains a library and statues (Buffetrille 2015, 144). Other replicas of Boudhanath stupa are being built in Tibetan regions, notably near Derge (sDe dge) in Kham, present-day Sichuan Province, China (Kunsang Namgyal Lama, personal communication, 2018).
Conclusion
Replicas of Boudhanath stupa apparently functioned as surrogate pilgrimage sites linking Mongolia to South Asia. This direct connection between Mongolia and South Asia is also found in the recognition of high Mongol lamas as being reincarnations of Tibetan saints and, ultimately, Indian kings in Mongolian Buddhist chronicles.
We have little information on the motivations of the builders, but we can guess that religious motivations (to acquire merit and generate incommensurable blessings) were mixed with political ones. Boudhanath may have become more popular and “efficacious” than Bodh Gaya in the Mongols’ imagination because it was said to fulfill all kinds of wishes, and because of the popularity of its guidebook and legend.
The replicas of Boudhanath appear in two main periods of history: the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries—a time that coincides with the translation into Mongolian of the Tibetan guidebook, the making of numerous thangkas, and actual pilgrimages to Boudhanath—and the twenty-first century, when Buddhism was revived in Mongolia, Buryatia, and China after years of persecution, in a context of both globalization and the rise of nationalism. Several “Jarung khashar” stupas were built or rebuilt, and the guidebook was retranslated and reprinted. In Amarbayasgalant khiid and Khejenge, the construction of a Jarung khashar is linked to religious and diplomatic contacts with Nepal. Because of their respective locations near the northern border with Russia and the southern border with China, the stupaof Amarbayasgalant khiid and the Kālacakra stupa of Dornogovi symbolically protect the frontiers of the Republic of Mongolia.[90] The use of photography as a new medium has led to a certain faithfulness in outward appearance either to the former “Jarung khashar” stupas or to Boudhanath stupa, though today most modern replicas have an inner shrine.
Mongol “Jarung khashar” stupas were often associated with other stupas, notably with those corresponding to the eight major events of Buddha’s life—Khan öndriin khüree had a dozen stupas; Gandan Monastery, twenty-eight; and Üüshin juu, three large and 108 smaller ones. The stupas erected outside Gandan were located in a place that was accessible to laypeople (who were not allowed to enter the monastery itself): the Mongol “Jarung khashar” stupas appear to have been major places of devotion for laypeople. Devotees circumambulated the “Jarung khashar” stupas, but they could not practice the ascending circumambulations of the three platforms toward the dome symbolizing the three levels of initiation into the mandala stupa and progression toward liberation, as in Boudhanath.
Several “Jarung khashar” stupas had an inner shrine, perhaps with an icon of Eleven-Faced Avalokiteśvara (we have no information on the rituals performed in the inner shrine or whether it was accessible to laypeople). Stupas are not supposed to have an accessible inner chamber: being originally funerary barrows, their main function in the Buddhist world is to enshrine precious relics and symbolize Enlightenment; after construction, the monument is sealed off. But some of the Mongol “Jarung khashar” stupas were both a form and an interior space: thus, the stupa was transformed into a different type of ritual site. This was also the case of the wuta of Beijing and Hohhot: the Mahabodhi Temple of Bodh Gaya was understood as being a stupa,[91] yet one can enter their inner shrine as one would enter a temple to worship images. Like the replica of the Mahabodhi Temple in Hohhot, the “Jarung khashar” stupas were thus considered as being something between the stupa and the temple.
Mongol replicas of Boudhanath stupa have become a new type of stupa clearly differentiated from other stupas. Some of their characteristics can be explained by distortions of two-dimensional media that certainly played a role in the process of transmitting the image, together with its cult, to Mongolia. But other differences from Boudhanath stupa may simply not have mattered at all to the builders and worshippers, provided that these replicas reproduced what were considered the essential features: the lowest common denominators, such as the size and the eyes.
The octagonal stupa of Üüshin juu, though locally known as Jarung khashar, is erroneously presented as a replica of the Mahabodhi Temple of Bodh Gaya both by Delege, an Inner Mongol specialist of Mongol Buddhism, and on the information boards within the monastery.[92] Mongols remember the legend of “Jarung khashar”—the story of the construction and its karmic consequences—but link it to Boudhanath stupa in Nepal, and think it is a mythical place. The “translation” was so successful that in some cases it led to a complete indigenization, to the point that the original was forgotten: Jarung khashar has become a type of Mongol stupa that fulfills all kinds of wishes and is associated with Avalokiteśvara; the foundation legend has even been recycled to integrate events of the communist history.
Nowadays Mongols from the Republic of Mongolia are often discouraged from undertaking pilgrimages abroad; their lamas generally advise them to go to Khamryn khiid, the “Gate of Shambhala” in Dornogovi Province, or to Amarbayasgalant khiid, and tell them that these two pilgrimages are equivalent to a pilgrimage abroad.[93] Like the Mahabodhi, and images and relics said to have come from ancient India, Boudhanath stupa has been relocated in Mongolia, and these replicas have functioned as key objects in rooting Buddhist faith in Mongolia. Eventually, over the course of time, some replicas in their turn came to be viewed as independent artifacts and the prime object was forgotten (see Charleux 2015a about the Jowo [Jo bo] images). Local replicas allowed pilgrims to appropriate the power of the original and, at the same time, could be used to legitimize political power; they are part of the fashioning of a distinct Mongol Buddhist identity.
Appendix 1: Mentions of Jarung Khashor in Mongolian Historiographical Works
The story of vows of reincarnations that originated in the stupa’s construction is found in three passages of Sagang sechen’s Erdeni-yin tobci (1662), which are repeated in Galdan’s Erdeni-yin erike (1859). I did not find it in other Mongolian chronicles, such as Lubsangdanjin’s Altan tobci (seventeenth century), Rasipungsug’s Bolor erike (ca. 1774–1775), Arya Pandita mKhan po’s Altan erike (1817), or Gongcugjab’s Subud erike (1835).
In Erdeni-yin tobci and Erdeni-yin erike, the story is evoked in the chapter on the early history of Buddhism in Tibet (Krueger 1967, 21–22; Galdan [1859] 1999, 89–91). The first mention of the angry elephant is when King Songtsen Gampo (Srong btsan sgam po, d. 649), who is credited with the introduction of Buddhism to Tibet, sends an emanation of himself (qubilγan toyin) in South India to rediscover an eleven-headed image located beneath a marvelous but fallen sandalwood tree. “Thereupon, from beneath the stupa consecrated by Kāshyapa buddha, named the Wheel of Flowers [seceg kürdün], he [the emanation] reverently brought forth [lit., “invited”] many relics of the three Buddhas” (Krueger 1967, 22; Galdan [1859] 1999, 89–90). However, to dig the earth, the emanation had to disturb a mighty elephant named Arza vartan (Airāvata or Arajavartan) that was lying there: the elephant then “uttered an evil prayer, ‘Your Transformation-King forgot me of old when he requested sanctity. Now my cool place has been disturbed. Let me, in a future rebirth, be reborn and become a mighty king who will destroy your religion,’” (Krueger 1967, 22; see also Galdan [1859] 1999, 90).
When the object of veneration (sitügen)—the image and, I assume, the relics—are brought back to the Tibetan king, Songtsen Gampo explains the elephant’s curse and recalls his previous incarnation when he was the son of “Degedü Amugulang” (Sublime Peace, referring to Déchokma, the poultry keeper) in ancient India and erected a stupacalled “Bsharung kashuur” (Sagang Sechen) or “Byarung qshovar” (Galdan):
“[W]hen I was requesting sanctity [qutuγ guyu-] before it, there was there an ox [a donkey in the original story], which had hauled earth to it. Forgetting him, and not conferring a blessing [on him], that ox was extremely angry, and uttered an evil prayer. I likewise laid down a counter-prayer. Now this elephant in his present rebirth, through having lain over this powerful faith-beholding object, has had his angry thoughts pacified. In the future, it will be easy to cause him to be tamed. I’m going to be that selfsame adversary who shall cause him to be tamed,” did he declaim. (Krueger 1967, 22; see also Galdan [1859] 1999, 89–91)
The story of the vows of reincarnation is again evoked when King Trison Détsen plans to build a temple called Nom-un kürdün süme, “Monastery of the Dharma Wheel” (Samyé Monastery). To convince Padmasambhava to come to Tibet and tame the local demons, Śāntarakṣita—here called bodhisattva Gambu (Tib. khenpo/mkhan po, “abbot”), or ubadani (Skt. upādhyāya, “teacher” or “instructor”) bodhisattva—says to the king that “there is an ancient invocation [irügel] able to make him come,” and tells him the story of Degedü Amugulang’s three sons from three different fathers, their building of the stupacalled “Bsharung kasuur/Bvarung kashuvar,” and their vows of reincarnation owing to their meritorious deeds, respectively as “a mighty Cakravarti King, Lord of the Alms of Religion,” “a great ubadani who will maintain religion,” and “a great dhāraṇī-expert, who will purge the obstacles of religion.” “In accord with the pronouncement [jarliγ] of that former bodhisattva, Padmasambhava would have no other choice but go to Tibet and tame the local demons, and this is what happened” (Krueger 1967, 32; see also Galdan [1859] 1999, 103–104).
The third occurrence involves King Langdarma’s persecution of Buddhism and promotion of the “black faith.” This is explained by the fact that he was “a rebirth of that former elephant, and by reason of having made that evil oath and by evil inclination.” But when the king was sixty-three, “when it reached the time for placing (in effect) that former counter-oath,” he was assassinated by a lama named Lharung cogtu Vajra (Tib. Lhalung Palgyi Dorjé/Lha lung dpal gyi rdo rje) to prevent the Dharma from being entirely effaced from Tibet: he was “the sure qubilgan [khubilgan, “reincarnation”] of elevated King Srong-bzan skampo” (Krueger 1967, 37; see also Galdan [1859] 1999, 109–110).
The Mongolian sources do not identify the stupaof Jarung khashar with Boudhanath (as stated above, in Tibetan sources “Jarung khashor” was said to be located in Magadha before the legend was transferred to Boudhanath in the fourteenth century). Besides, the references to the story focus not on the stupaitself but on the oaths of reincarnations to explain the rise and fall of Buddhism in early Tibetan history. The modern Mongolian name of the stupa, Ama aldasan (“making of an oath, a promise”), can be understood as both the king’s answer (Cl. Mo. üiledjü bolona gejü ama aldasan ni, lit., “I made the promise [that she could] proceed with the work”) and as a reference to the oaths of reincarnation of the protagonists of the story.
Appendix 2: Translation of the Text of Figure 18, by Françoise Wang-Toutain
Namo guru. Here is the story of the great stupaknown as Jarung Kashor [Tib. Bya rung kha shor] that was told by Orgyen Rinpoché [that is, Padmasambhava] at the request of King Trison Détsen:
In very ancient times, at the feet of the Tathāgata Amitābha, the great bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara had made the wish to liberate all beings from samsara. Later on, at the time of Buddha Dipankara, in the region of Makuti in Nepal, he was reborn as the woman Bya rdzi ma [poultry keeper]. With her four sons and a servant, she built this stupa. As for the benefits [of its worship]: by making the depiction of this site, as well as offerings and circumambulations, in the short term one will obtain wealth, have neither hunger nor thirst nor diseases, obtain longevity, be endowed with respect for ethics, and have a sound knowledge of the Tripiṭaka; and in the longer term, one will be reborn in Sukhāvatī. If one wants to have more details about the history of this stupaand the benefits [of its worship], he or she should have a look at the karchak that liberates just by listening to its reading. This was printed at [honorary sign] Ago’i chos sde chen mo bde chen lhun grubs gling.
References
Ashencaen, Deborah, and Gennady Leonov. 1996. Art of Buriatia: Buddhist Icons from Southern Siberia. London: Spink and Son.
Béguin, Gilles. 1993. “Les sources de Zanabazar.” In Trésors de Mongolie, XVIIe–XIXe siècles [Treasures of Mongolia, seventeenth–nineteenth centuries], edited by Françoise Aubin and Gilles Béguin, 64–81. Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux.
Bĕlka, Luboš. 2001. Tibetsky buddhismus v Burjatsku [Tibetan Buddhism in Buryatia]. Brno, Czech Republic: Masarykova Univerzita.
Berger, Patricia. 2003. Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Blondeau, Anne-Marie. 1982–1983. “Religions tibétaines” [Tibetan religions]. Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve section, Sciences religieuses 91: 123–131.
———. 1994. “Bya rung kha shor, légende fondatrice du bouddhisme tibétain” [Bya rung kha shor, founding legend of Tibetan Buddhism]. In Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Fagernes 1992, vol. 1, edited by Per Kvaerne, 31–48. Oslo: Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture.
Buffetrille, Katia. 2015. “Some Remarks on Bya rung Kha shor and Other Buddhist Replicas in Amdo.” In From Bhakti to Bon: Festschrift for Per Kværne, edited by Hanna Havnevik and Charles Ramble, 133–152. Oslo: Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture.
Charleux, Isabelle. 2006a. “Copies de Bodhgayā en Asie orientale: Les stupas de type Wuta à Pékin et Kökeqota (Mongolie-Intérieure)” [Copies of Bodh Gaya in East Asia: The Wuta-type stupas in Beijing and Kökeqota (Inner Mongolia)]. Arts Asiatiques—L’autre en regard, Volume en hommage à Madame Michèle Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens 61: 120–142.
———. 2006b. Temples et monastères de Mongolie-Intérieure [Temples and monasteries of Inner Mongolia]. Paris: Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques and Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (+ 1 CD-ROM).
———. 2015a. “The Mongols’ Devotion to the Jowo Buddhas: The True Icons and Their Mongol Replicas.” Artibus Asiae 75 (1): 83–146.
———. 2015b. Nomads on Pilgrimage: Mongols on Wutaishan (China), 1800–1940. Leiden: Brill.
Chayet, Anne. 1985. Les temples de Jehol et leurs modèles tibétains [The temples of Chengde and their Tibetan models]. Paris: Recherche sur les civilisations.
Chou, Wen-shing. 2015. “Imperial Apparitions: Manchu Buddhism and the Cult of Mañjuśrī.” Archives of Asian Art 65 (1–2): 139–179.
Coleman, Simon, and John Elsner, eds. 1995. Pilgrimage: Past and Present in the World Religions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Croner, Don. 2006. Guide to the Locales Connected with the Life of Zanabazar, First Bogd Gegeen of Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar: BookSurge Publishing.
Czaja, Olaf. 2013. “Tsaklis, Thangkas, Prints, Amulets and Manuscripts.” In The Mongolian Collections: Retracing Hans Leder, edited by Maria-Katharina Lang and Stefan Bauer, 38–52. Verlag: VÖAW.
———. 2015. “Some Remarks on Representations of the Bodhnath Stupa in Art and Architecture in Tibet, Mongolia and Buryatia.” In The Illuminating Mirror: Tibetan Studies in Honour of Per K. Sørensen on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Olaf Czaja and Guntram Hazod, 87–100, 581–589. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.
Daajav, B. 2006. Mongolyn uran barilgyn tüükh [History of Mongol architecture]. 3 vols. Ulaanbaatar: Admon.
Delege 德勒格. 1998. Nei Menggu lamajiao shi 內蒙古喇嘛教史 [History of “Lamaism” in Inner Mongolia]. Hohhot: Nei Menggu renmin chubanshe.
Dowman, Keith, trans. [1973] 1993. The Great Stupa of Boudhanath: The Tibetan Legend of the Great Stupa. Ballyvaughan: Footprint Publishing.
Ehrhard, Franz-Karl. 1990. “The Stupa of Bodhnāth: A Preliminary Analysis of the Written Sources.” Ancient Nepal 120 (1): 1–9.
———. 2007. “A Forgotten Incarnation Lineage: The Yol mo ba Sprul skus (16th to 18th Centuries).” In The Pandita and the Siddha: Tibetan Studies in Honour of E. Gene Smith, edited by Ramon N. Prats, 25–49. New Delhi: Amnye Machen.
———. 2013. “Old and New Tibetan Sources Concerning Swayambhūnāth.” In Buddhism in Tibet and the Himalayas: Texts and Traditions, by Franz-Karl Ehrhard, 71–91. Kathmandu: Vajra Publications.
Epstein, Lawrence, and Wenbin Peng. 1994. “Ganja and Murdo: The Social Construction of Space at Two Pilgrimage Sites in Eastern Tibet.” TibetJournal (special issue: Powerful Places and Spaces in Tibetan Religious Culture) 19 (2): 21–45.
Fleming, Zara, and Jadamba Lkhagvademchig Shastri, eds. 2011. Mongolian Buddhist Art: Masterpieces from the Museums of Mongolia, vol. 1, parts 1–2:Thangkas, Embroideries, and Appliqués. Chicago, IL: Serindia Publications/Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, and the Centre for Cultural Heritage, Mongolia.
Gayley, Holly. 2007. “Soteriology of the Senses in Tibetan Buddhism.” Numen 54: 459–499.
Gazizova, Valeria. 2009. “Stupas and Their Consecration in Contemporary Kalmykia.” MA thesis, University of Oslo.
Griswold, Alexander B. 1965. “The Holy Land Transported: Replicas of the Mahābodhi Shrine in Siam and Elsewhere.” In Paranavitana Felicitation Volume on Art and Architecture and Oriental Studies, edited by Nicholas A. Jayawickrama, 173–222. Colombo: M. D. Gunasena and Co.
Gutschow, Neils. 1997. The Nepalese Chaitya: 1500 years of Buddhist Votive Architecture in the Kathmandu Valley. Stuttgart: Axel Menges.
Haslund-Christensen, Henning. 1935. Men and Gods in Mongolia (Zayagan). Translated from Swedish by Elizabeth Sprigge and Claude Napier. London: Trench, Trubner and Co.
Huber, Toni. 2008. The Holy Land Reborn: Pilgrimage and the Reinvention of Buddhist India. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Humphrey, Caroline. 2001. “Staline et l’éléphant bleu: Paranoïa et complicité dans les métahistoires postcommunistes” [Stalin and the blue elephant: Paranoia and complicity in postcommunist metahistories]. Diogène 194 (2001/2002): 31–42.
Krueger, John R., ed. 1967. The Bejewelled Summary of the Origin of Khans (Qad-un ündüsün-ü Erdeni-yin tobči): A History of the Eastern Mongols to 1662, Part I: Chapters 1–5: From the Creation of the World to the Death of Gengis Khan (1227). Bloomington, IN: The Mongolia Society.
Lam Kezang Chhophel. 2002. “A Brief History of Rigsum Goenpo Lhakhang and Choeten Kora at Trashi Yangtse.” Journal of Bhutan Studies 6: 1–4.
Large-Blondeau, Anne-Marie (=Blondeau, Anne-Marie). 1960. “Les pèlerinages Tibétains” [Tibetan pilgrimages]. In Sources orientales 3: Les Pèlerinages, edited by Jean Yoyotte, Maurive Vieyra, and Muhammad Hamīdullāh, 203–245. Paris: Le Seuil.
Maidar, D. (1970) 1972. Mongolyn arkhitektur ba khot baiguulalt: Toim [Architecture and construction of cities in Mongolia: Overview]. Translated from Russian. Ulaanbaatar: Ulsyn khevleliin kombinat.
Martin, Dan, and Thupten J. Norbu, 1991. “Dorjiev: Memoirs of a Tibetan Diplomat.” Hokke bunka kenkyū 法華文化研究 17: 1–105.
McKeown, Arthur. 2010. “From Bodhgayā to Lhasa to Beijing: The Life and Times of Śāriputra (c.1335–1426), Last Abbot of Bodhgayā.” PhD diss., Harvard University.
Nakza, Drolma. 2019. “Pilgrimage Guide of the Tibetan Buddhist Holy Mountain Brag dkar sprel Rdzong.” Revue d’Études Tibétaines 48: 170–183.
Narasun, S., and Temürbaγatur. 2000. Ordos-un süme keyid [Monasteries of Ordos]. Hailar: Öbör Mongγol-un soyol-un keblel-ün qoriya.
Ninjbadgar, S. 2000. Ikh suvraga Jarin khashor ba Khan öndriin khüree [Great stupas Jarung khashar and Khan öndriin khüree]. Ulaanbaatar: Urlakh Erdem.
Pozdneev, Aleksei M. [1896] 1971. Mongolia and the Mongols, vol. 1. Translated from Russian by J. R. Shaw, and D. Plankrad. Bloomington: Mouton and Co.
Pürevbat. 2005. Ikh Mongolyn suvarga: Onol khiigeed büteekh yos [Stupas of Greater Mongolia: Theory and practice]. Ulaanbaatar: MIVA.
Saγang ssecen [1662] 1955. Erdeni-yin tobci [Bejewelled summary]. Printed edition: Eine Urga-Handschrift des mongolischen Geschichtswerks von Secen Sagan (alias Sanang Secen), edited by Erich Haenisch. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Shchepetil’nikov, Nicolai M. 1960. Arkhitektura Mongolii [The architecture of Mongolia]. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo literatury po stroitel’stvu.
Shen, Hsueh-man. 2019. Authentic Replicas: Buddhist Art in Medieval China. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.
Slusser, Mary Shepherd. 1982. Nepal Mandala: A Cultural Study of the Kathmandu Valley. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Smith, Jonathan Z. 1998. “Constructing a Small Place.” In Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land, edited by Benjamin Z. Kedar and R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, 18–31. New York: New York University Press.
Snellgrove, David. 1957. Buddhist Himalaya: Travels and Studies in Quest of the Origins and Nature of Tibetan Religion. Oxford: Bruno Cassirer.
Snodgrass, Adrian. 1985. The Symbolism of the Stupa. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Teleki, Krisztina. 2011. Monasteries and Temples of Bogdiin Khüree. Ulaanbaatar: Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Institute of History.
Tenzin Samphel. 1998. “‘Les yeux de la compassion’ : Les trois principaux lieux saints de la vallée de Kathmandu visités par les pèlerins tibétains” [Eyes of compassion: The three principal holy places visited by Tibetan pilgrims in the Kathmandu Valley]. DEA diss., Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, Paris.
Tsendina, Anna D. 1995. “Istoriya o bol‘šoi stupe Djarung-Khašor” [The story of the Great stupaJarung khashar]. In Tibetskii buddizm: Teoriya i praktika, edited byNikolai V. Abayev, 223–252. Novosibirsk: Nauka.
Tsultem, N. 1988. Mongolian Architecture. Ulaanbaatar: State Publishing House.
Tsyrempilov, Nikolai, and Tsymzhit Vanchikova (compilers). 2004. Annotated Catalogue of the Collection of Mongolian Manuscripts and Xylographs MI of the Institute of Mongolian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences. Sendai: Tōhoku Daigaku Tōhoku Ajia Kenkyū Sentā.
Uranchimeg Tsultemin. 2016. Mongolyn Ikh khüree khiidiin Buddyn shashny urlag [Buddhist art of Ikh Khüree Monastery of Mongolia]. Ulaanbaatar: BCI khevleliin kompani.
Uspensky, Vladimir L. 1999. Catalogue of the Mongolian Manuscripts and Xylographs in the St. Petersburg State University Library. Edited and foreword by Tatsuo Nakami. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Waddell, Austine. [1895] 1985. Buddhism and Lamaism of Tibet, with Its Mystic Cults, Symbolism and Mythology, and in Its Relation to Indian Buddhism. Kathmandu: Educational Enterprise.
Wood, Christopher. 2008. Forgery, Replica, Fiction: Temporalities of German Renaissance Art. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Zhang Yuhuan 張馭寰. 1959. Nei Menggu gu jianzhu 內蒙古古建築 [Ancient architecture of Inner Mongolia]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe.
About the Author
Isabelle Charleux is Director of Research at the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), Group Societies, Religions, Laicities (GSRL, CNRS–École Pratique des Hautes Études-PSL, Paris). The author thanks Katia Buffetrille, Sue Byrne, Kunsang Namgyal Lama, Françoise Pommaret, Uranchimeg Tsultemin, Vladimir Uspensky, two anonymous Cross-Currents reviewers for their suggestions and additional references, Olaf Czaja for sharing his notes and photographs of prints of Boudhanath, and Françoise Wang-Toutain for translating the text of Appendix 2. The author is deeply grateful to Zsuzsa Majer for having sent me a copy of Ninjbadgar (2000) and to Patricia Berger who provided many insightful comments about and corrections to an earlier version of this article.
[1] Mongolian words are transcribed from Classical Mongolian, except for place names in the Republic of Mongolia and Russia, which are transcribed from Cyrillic Mongolian and Russian. Here, “Mongolian” is restricted to the language and to qualify the citizens of Mongolia proper after it gained its autonomy in 1911; otherwise, “Mongol” is used. Tibetan words are phonetically transcribed according to the THL Simplified Phonetic Transcription of Standard Tibetan System and transliterated according to Wylie’s system.
[2] The guidebook is, according to its postscripts, a terma (gter ma, “hidden treasure,” a text of teachings said to have been hidden by various great masters to be rediscovered at auspicious times) of the Nyingmapa (rNying ma pa) tradition composed by Padmasambhava in the eighth century and hidden by Yéshé Tsogyel (Ye shes mtsho rgyal). It was first discovered by eleventh-century nun and tertön (gter ston, “treasure discoverer”) Lhatsün Ngönmo (lHa btsun sngon mo) in Samyé (bSam yas) Monastery. The tertön Nganchang Sakya Zangpo (sNgags ’chang Śākya bzang po) rediscovered it around 1512 and presumably had it printed (Blondeau 1982–1983; Ehrhard 1990, 1–2; 2007, 25–27). It has been published in English by Keith Dowman ([1973] 1993, 21–65; according to the last postscript, it was translated by Kunzang Tenzin, based on a 1971 translation by Nima Norbu).
[3] For variants of the story in Tibetan literature, see Tenzin Samphel (1998, 72–77).
[4] Or, “Permission once given cannot be taken back”; lit., “I blurted out that it should be done” (Cyr. Mo. üildej bolno gej am aldsan n’, Cl. Mo. üiledjü bolona gejü ama aldasan ni, lit., “I made the promise [that she could] proceed with the work”).
[5] The fourth son became a messenger named Belselnang (sBal gsal snang).
[6] In Mongolian, Boudhanath stupa in Kathmandu and the Mongol replicas are all called by the same term, Jarung khashar; here I will use “Jarung khashar” only for the Mongol stupas.
[7] The process of replicating sacred architecture seems to have been rare in Tibet, but there are many instances of transfer or relocation of sacred Indian or Tibetan places, such as mountains and charnel grounds, particularly through toponymy (Huber 2008, esp. 118–119; Buffetrille 2015, 134–135). Similarly, several Mongol monasteries were said to be modeled on the Tibetan monasteries of Drépung (’Bras spungs), Séra (Se ra) or Tashi Lhunpo (bKra shis lhun po); however, it was generally not the architecture but the liturgy, music, debate manual, or system of colleges that were copied (Charleux 2006b, 145–148).
[8] Chorten Kora (mChod rten skor ra), built in the eighteenth century in East Bhutan (Tashi Yangtse) to commemorate a Buddhist master and subdue a local demon (Lam Kezang Chhophel 2002); Chendebji Chorten (sPyan ldan sbyi mchod rten), constructed in the eighteenth century after a model brought from Nepal, about 40 kilometers west of Trongsa; and a smaller one in Kuri Zampa, ca. 1800 (Bhutan Cultural Atlas website: http://www.bhutanculturalatlas.org/998/culture/sites-structures/other-places-of-interests/chorten-prayer-walls/chendebji-chorten/). I thank Françoise Pommaret for this information (email message to author, March 6, 2015).
[9] See also Chou (2015) on Emperor Qianlong’s replica of three Manchu temples modeled after famed temples at Mount Wutai (the abode of Mañjuśrī in China). Thanks to a suggestion from a reviewer of this article, I discovered Shen’s work (2019) on the duplication and reduplication of Buddhist images, scriptures, and relics in medieval China.
[10] Regarding replicas of the Mahabodhi Temple of Bodh Gaya, McKeown (2010) argues that the construction of Mahabodhi stupas shows how rulers reenacted the cakravartin (Buddhist universal, enlightened ruler) kingship ideal through patronage of replication projects. The Yongle emperor’s (r. 1402–1424/5) replica of the Mahabodhi Temple in Beijing, the Wuta 五塔 (Five Stupas), built between 1466 and 1473, would be a strategic reenactment of the Yuan dynasty’s appropriation of Buddhism and its tantric “technologies.”
[11] The distortions due to two different types of perspective used by painters were applied by the builders of the Chengde temples (Chayet 1985, 86–95). See also Griswold (1965) about scale models.
[12] I thank Chou Wen-shing for having brought this book to my attention.
[13] By “original object,” I mean the object that served as a model for a replica at a certain period in time. Of course, there is no one immutable, unalterable original Boudhanath; the stupa was rebuilt, enlarged, and restored many times (the most recent restoration followed the 2015 earthquake); new structures were added while older ones disappeared.
[14] Wood (2008, chap. 2, esp. 45–48) sees architectural replicas as connected to a common source by referential links.
[15] Griswold uses the term “transplantation”: “The sapling, though far smaller, and possessed of far fewer branches and leaves, is no less a Ficus religiosa; and while it can never resemble its ancestor exactly in configuration, it will be able to exercise the same power over men’s minds” (1965, 181–182).
[16] Berger uses the term “quotation” to describe “dropping untranslated elements into a new framework” (2003, 8).
[17] On the practice of “labeling” artifacts through the extensive use of written texts (inscriptions, epigraphic tablets, etc.) to posit links back to a prestigious origin and to support their “authenticity,” see Wood (2008, 53–26).
[18] For an example of a Tibetan “rediscovery” of a Buddhist holy place in India by visionary revelation, see Huber (2008, chap. 5).
[19] On Tibetan local pilgrimages considered equivalent to international holy places such as Lhasa, Mount Kailash, and Bodh Gaya, see Large-Blondeau (1960, 226), Epstein and Peng (1994, 24), and Nakza (2019). Griswold also observes this equivalence with regard to pilgrimages to replicas of Bodh Gaya in South and Southeast Asia (1965, 182). For a discussion of Christian replicas of the Holy House of Nazareth, Lourdes, and other shrines, see Coleman and Elsner (1995, 104–106).
[20] However, some replicas never functioned as substitutes, or were only second-best options, and pilgrims are not content with surrogate pilgrimages if they have the opportunity to visit the original place. See Charleux (2015b) on Mongol surrogate Wutaishan and Buffetrille (2015, 144–145) on Tibetan surrogate pilgrimage places.
[21] See Jonathan Smith’s work on Jerusalem, in which he studies the ways that sacred sites are relocated when the original site is no longer accessible (1998).
[22] Rölpé Dorjé composed a text to be engraved on the walls of the Tabun suburga.
[23] The Ninth Panchen Lama’s popularity was enhanced by the belief that a future reincarnation of the Panchen Lama would reign as the king of Shambhala and lead the Buddhist army in the final war between Buddhists and heretics. Anyone who took the Kālacakra initiation from the current Panchen Lama was ensured a later rebirth in the kingdom of Shambhala and a participation in the final victory and would be liberated.
[24] The oldest chöjung (Tib. chos ’byung, lit., “origin of Buddhism,” historical chronicle), dated to the twelfth century, that tells the story of the stupa named “Jarung khashor” locates it in what most authors identify as Magadha in India; in the fourteenth century, Tibetans transferred the story of “Jarung khashor” to Boudhanath (Blondeau 1982–1983). About the dates and circumstances of the foundation of Boudhanath stupa, see Ehrhard (1990), Blondeau (1994), and Tenzin Samphel (1998, 65–77).
[25] According to Tenzin Samphel, this stupa is comparable to a cintāmaṇi (jewel) “because, whatever the vow one pronounces, it will realize itself. Even the Buddhas cannot describe the benefits and blessings resulting from offerings, prostrations, or circumambulations made with a pure spirit in front or around the stupa of Bodnath. The one who sees this stupa will not be reincarnated in inferior realms. The one who hears about it will plant inside him/herself the seed of Enlightenment. The one who thinks about it will be freed from demonic forces and mental diseases and will see his or her capacities of meditation improve. To sum up, this stupa will grant the realization of all wishes. This is why it is called Smon lam thams cad sgrub pa’imchod rten, ‘the stupa that grants all wishes’” (1998, 75, 95).
[26] The Mongolian text of this thangka reads: “Ene yeke suburγa anu sedkilcilen cindamani lüge adali” (see Czaja 2015, 96n59).
[28] Mongols’ pilgrimages to Boudhanath prior to the nineteenth century are not documented.
[29] In the twentieth century, transportation facilities and guidebooks facilitated the pilgrimage from Lhasa to Nepal and India (pilgrims traveled to India by train and took a boat to China to return home) (Charleux 2015b, 33–37).
[30] For Tibetans, visiting the three main stupas of Kathmandu Valley—Boudhanath, Swayambunath, and Namo Buddha—was considered equivalent in terms of accumulating merit to visiting all the other sacred pilgrimage sites (Tenzin Samphel 1998, 6). There exist several Tibetan guidebooks on Swayambunath stupa that contain descriptions of other Nepalese holy places, including Boudhanath (Ehrhard 2013, 71–91).
[31] On Tibetans who restored the stupa, see Ehrhard (1990; 2013), Gutschow (1997, 96–99), and Buffetrille (2015, 137–138). On Tibetan pilgrimages to Nepal, see Huber (2008, 173–175).
[32] Tibetologist David Snellgrove met Sogpo Rinpoché in Boudhanath in the early 1950s and took a photograph of him (Snellgrove 1957, 100, pl. 14). Social anthropologist Corneille Jest met Sogpo Rinpoché when he headed the monastery in the 1960s.
[33] With the influx of large populations of refugees from Tibet since 1959 and the construction of over fifty Tibetan monasteries surrounding the stupa, Boudhanath has become a small Tibetan enclave in Nepal.
[34] He helped the Fourteenth Dalai Lama in exile to re-found the main Tibetan monastic institutions in India. In 1986, Sogpo Rinpoché was forced to leave India for Nepal because he was involved in a conflict with the Dalai Lama over the practice of the deity Dorjé Shukden (rDo rje shugs ldan), which the latter banned. Under increasing pressure from Tibetans in Nepal, he left Nepal in 1992 and settled in Mongolia.
[35] See, for example, the eighteenth-century pilgrimage guide to Nepalese sacred places by Fourth Khamtrul Chöki Nyima (Kham sprul chos kyi nyi ma, 1730–1779) (Blondeau 1982–1983).
[36] Copies of the printed text were still available at the shrine when Snellgrove visited it in the early 1950s (1957, 99 note a).
[37] One copy is in Ulan-Ude (Tsyrempilov and Vanchikova 2004, 289, cat. 829: Biarung kašur kemen aldarsiγsan egüni tuγuji orosiba, twenty-six folios); three are in Saint Petersburg (Uspensky 1999, 280, cat. 247: Bharug ga-šor kemekü orosibai, twenty-three folios; cat. 248: Bharug ga-šor kemekü orosibai or Bharug ga-šor kemekü yeke suburγan-u tuγuji sonosuγad tonilγagci kemekü, twenty-four folios; and cat. 249: Tib. Bya rung kha shor, twenty folios). I did not have access to these pothi and do not know if their texts are identical. The manuscript was also translated into Russian (Tsendina 1995).
[38] Vladimir Uspensky (1999, 280, cat. 247) believes the Year of the Water Dragon could be 1772.
[39] The adaptation was revised by D. Tserensodnom. Ninjbadgar gives the following title in Cyrillic Mongolian (Cyr. Mo. Ikh suvraga Jarun khashoryn tuuj sonsokhui getelgegch khemeekh sudar orshiv, Cl. Mo. Yeke suburγa Jarung qašor tuγuji sonosqui getülgegci kemekü sudur orosiba, The sutra that saves by hearing the story of the Great Jarung khashar Stupa). According to the colophon, it was translated into Mongolian by famous gabju Bachoijijaltsan and engraved by rabjamba Lubsanlundub and gebshi Lig and Dan (gabju [Tib. kachu/dka’ bcu], rabjamba [Tib. rapjampa/rabs ’byams pa], and gebshi [géshé/dge bshes] are different Buddhist academic degrees) (Ninjbadgar 2000, 47). A different version (probably directly translated from Tibetan) was published by Pürevbat (2005, 526–540).
[40] The modern Mongolian version published by Ninjbadgar reports that the Mongols conquered not Tibet (as the Tibetan version claims) but the “Country of the Sun” (i.e., Japan) (“Moduin [khyazgaar] Mongol ber Narii [Yapony] oron evdekh tsag,” Ninjbadgar 2000, 37)! Pürevbat’s version has “Anr(iig).” The transcriptions “Narii” and “Anr(iig)” are probably a misunderstanding of the original Tibetan text.
[41] On liberation upon hearing, and more generally on the senses as a mean of salvation, see Gayley (2007).
[42] It is located 3.5 kilometers north of Taihuai 臺懷 Village. According to legend, the stupa’s base came from Tibet, its body flew from Kumbum Monastery, and its summit fled from Tibet or Nepal to Wutaishan. On the legend of the flying stupa, see Charleux (2015b, online appendix B, 102–103).
[43] Eight stupas were rebuilt north of the monastery in 2002.
[44] Ninjbadgar (2000, 55–64) used sources from the Central Library and the Central Archives of Mongolia, as well as oral accounts of elderly people.
[47] Pozdneev mentions twenty-eight stupas built by pious worshippers to the west and north of Gandan but does not mention the “Jarung khashar” stupa ([1896] 1971, 77).
[49] Sue Byrne, who collected old photographs of Mongolian monasteries for the project “Documentation of Mongolian Monasteries,” could not find old photos of the stupa but did find one of Gandan’s Jarung khashar mislabeled as “Dambadarjaa” (Sue Byrne, pers. comm., May 2015).
[50] Russian orientalist A. M. Pozdneev gave a detailed description of Dambadarjaa khiid, which he visited in 1892, but did not mention the Jarung khashar ([1896] 1971, 387–392). Yet, he did not mention that of Gandan either.
[51] Delege (1998, 633) wrongly writes that it was called Puti jiaye data 菩提伽耶大塔 (“Great stupa of Bodh Gaya”) and was a replica of the Mahabodhi Temple.
[54] No in-depth architectural description of Boudhanath stupa has been published yet. The stupa probably attained its present shape during the 1821 restoration. For a short description of its architecture and iconography, see Gutschow (1997, 96–99), Slusser (1982, 149–175), and Tenzin Samphel (1998, 91–95). Old photos of the stupa are accessible on the website of the “Shree Boudhanath Area Development Committee” (http://bnadc.org.np/gallery/old-boudha-stupa/).
[55] A Mongolian example is the recently built stupa of Khamryn khiid (Cl. Mo. Khamar-un kheid) in Dornogovi Province. The recently built replica of Boudhanath in Amdo/Qinghai Province, China also has an inner shrine (Buffetrille 2015, 143–144).
[56] The total area is 82.36 x 82.03 meters, the diameter is 36.57 meters, and the height is 43 meters.
[57] These plinths of intersected squares and rectangles correspond to the viṃśatikona, the platform of twenty angles, one type prescribed by the twelfth-century Kriyāsaṃgraha. Mary Shepherd Slusser (1982, 171, 175) believes that a primitive core from the Licchavi period (sixth century) is probably concealed under the immense dome. In the transitional or early Malla period, the Tibetans transformed the stupa into the mandala form it now has, perhaps in imitation of the stupaof Gyantsé (rGyal rtse) Monastery in Tibet.
[58] In figure 5, the stupas have lost their spires.
[59] See the photos in the Albert Kahn collection. In the Chinese classification of stupas, a big central stupa surrounded by four smaller stupas recalls the Mahabodhi of Bodh Gaya; this type of stupa is called wuta (“five stupas”).
[60] Nowadays at Boudhanath, at the northern (main) entrance there is a temple dedicated to Hārītī with a pitched metallic roof between its two southern gates and a small Tibetan-like building inside the precinct, left of the main gate. Inside the precinct are other smaller stupas and shrines, including a Hindu shrine (see Tenzin Samphel 1998, 91–95, on the iconography of Boudhanath, and notably about the goddess Pukasi, one of the eight mothers associated with the eight sacred cemeteries). These shrines are not reproduced in the Mongol replicas.
[61] The iwan is an element of Persian architecture that consists of a vaulted space that is open on one rectangular facade featuring a large equilateral pointed arch.
[62] See photo no. 3984 in the Albert Kahn collection.
[63] A vajra, or“thunderbolt-diamond,” is a ritual object symbolizing both the properties of a diamond (indestructibility) and a thunderbolt (irresistible force).
[64] The niches enshrine stone images of the Nyingmapa pantheon: buddhas, bodhisattvas, siddhas(accomplished masters), lamas, yidams/yi dams (tutelary deities of Vajrayāna Buddhism personifying philosophical systems), ḍākinīs (female figures who personify wisdom), and dharmapālas (wrathful guardians of the doctrine who vowed to defend the Dharma and suppress the enemies of Buddhism).
[65] The harmikā represents Buddha’s head. With slender eyes painted on the harmikā, the “Jarung khashar” stupas of Gandan and Dambadarjaa look like human beings. The shape of the stupa represents the Buddha, crowned and seated in meditation on a lion’s throne: his crown is the top of the spire, his head is the harmikā, his body is the aṇḍa, his legs are the steps of the lower terrace, and the base is his throne.
[66] The eyes are also found on the Bhutanese replicas.
[67] For example, the stupas of Gyantsé in Tibet, the northern stupa of Mukden/Shenyang in China, and Swayambunath and Kathesimbu stupas in Kathmandu.
[68] See “Selenge aimagiin 7 gaikhamshig” (http://mongolcom.mn/like/15170) and “Shaltagan tögöldör bolgutai”(https://news.mn/r/641185/). An “ordinary” bottle-shapedstupa called Stupa of Enlightenment and Suppression of Negative Energy, built in Iki-Burul, Republic of Kalmykia, in 2004, has eyes painted on each side of its harmikā “in accordance with the Nepalese Nyingma tradition.” According to the monastery’s abbot Padma Sherab, they represent the eyes of Avalokiteśvara (Gazizova 2009, 48).
[69] Cl. Mo. ganjir or sang tegülder, Skt. kalāsa, Tib. dzöden/mdzod ldan or dzödang/mdzod bdang).
[70] This wall is probably a later addition built around 1860 (Czaja 2015, 88n7, quoting Gutschow 1997, 68).
[71] For Wood (2008, 45–48), “this principle of negative differentiation from the surrounding context explains the strong local flavor of so many of the medieval European replicas of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.” One or two salient features, such as the central ground plan and specific proportions, were enough to connect the Holy Sepulchre to its architectural replicas.
[72] The replicas of Bodh Gaya in Chiang Mai (Thailand) and Pegu (Myanmar) were also based on plans and drawings made by architects and craftsmen sent in mission to India (Griswold 1965, 185, 187).
[73] For an example in Tibet, see the Qing dynasty “Sandalwood Promise Pagoda,” 28.5 x 20.4 cms (Yan 2000, 4:162–163, fig. 68).
[75] According to Deborah Ashencaen and Gennady Leonov (1996, pl. 9), thangka no. 4 of table 2 is eighteenth-century, but the nineteenth century seems more plausible.
[76] For a detailed study of some thangkas and prints depicting Boudhanath stupa, see Czaja (2015).
[77] Lañtsa or Rañjanā, a Brahmi script developed in Nepal, is commonly used in Mongolia for formulas of consecration and other mantras.
[78] For an example of a printed image with a prayer to a famous icon in the Mongol world, the sandalwood Buddha of Beijing, see Charleux (2015a, 137 and fig. 28).
[79] Other inscriptions are translated in Czaja (2015, 92–94).
[80] In Western collections, several Nepalese paintings depict Boudhanath stupa (see, for example, Czaja 2015, fig. 9).
[81] Table 2, thangka no. 24 shows the stairs leading to the harmikā.
[82] Because Eleven-Faced Avalokiteśvara became especially associated with Boudhanath stupa in Mongolia, Olaf Czaja believes that three other prints of the Leder collection dedicated to Eleven-Faced Avalokiteśvara are a “symbolic depiction” of Boudhanath: Leipzig inv. no. 3453, Stuttgart inv. no. 23895, 24387 (http://www.moncol.net/mongolia/museum/itemdetailview/id/3278).
[83] The Dhānyakaṭaka stupa is also depicted on Mongol thangkas: see a thangka in the former Kālacakra College of Ikh Khüree, now preserved at Gandan Monastery (Croner 2006, 67). It is the place where Śākyamuni (who actually was at Vulture’s Peak and used his gift of ubiquity) taught the Kālacakra sūtra to Sucandra coming from the kingdom of Shambhala.
[84] I thank Vladimir Uspensky for having sent me a photograph of this print.
[85] He founded the Zanabazar Mongolian Institute of Buddhist Art of Gandan Monastery.
[86] According to Katia Buffetrille (pers. comm., 2011), quoting information from the Mongolian consulate in Nepal.
[88] A replica of the Mahabodhi Temple of Bodh Gaya was also recently built on Wutaishan.
[89] This was a nonsectarian, universalistic movement that developed in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century eastern Tibet and held that all Buddhist traditions were valuable and worthy of study and preservation.
[90] It is possible that Pürevbat built the Kālacakra stupa on the Mongolian southern border to mirror that of Amarbayasgalant.
[91] The Tabun suburga of Hohhot is not a temple but a mandala stupa of the Five Tathāgatas with a central tower surrounded by four smaller towers (Charleux 2006a).
[92] The error may have occurred because the stupa’s interior recalled the large vaulted room inside the Tabun suburga “Mahabodhi” of Hohhot.
[93] According to interviews carried out between 2009 and 2013 about Mongols’ pilgrimages.
HYMN XCIV. Agni 94 1 FOR Jatavedas worthy of our praise will we frame with our mind this eulogy as it were a car. For good, in his assembly, is this care of ours. Let us not, in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm. 2 The man for whom thou sacrificest prospereth, dwelleth without a foe, gaineth heroic might. He waxeth strong, distress never approacheth him. Let us not, in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm. 3 May we have power to kindle thee. Fulfil our thoughts. In thee the Gods eat the presented offering, Bring hither the Adityas, for we long for them. Let us not in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm. 4 We will bring fuel and prepare burnt offerings, reminding thee at each successive festival. Fulfil our thought that so we may prolong our lives. Let us not in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm. 5 His ministers move forth, the guardians of the folk, protecting quadruped and biped with their rays. Mighty art thou, the wondrous herald of the Dawn. Let us not in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm. 6 Thou art Presenter and the chief Invoker, thou Director, Purifier, great High Priest by birth. Knowing all priestly work thou perfectest it, Sage. Let us not in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm. 7 Lovely of form art thou, alike on every side; though far, thou shinest brightly as if close at hand. O God, thou seest through even the dark of night. Let us not in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm. 8 Gods, foremost be his car who pours libations out, and let our hymn prevail over evilhearted- men. Attend to this our speech and make it prosper well. Let us not in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm. 9 Smite with thy weapons those of evil speech and thought, devouring demons, whether near or tar away. Then to the singer give free way for sacrifice. Let us not in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm. 10 When to thy chariot thou hadst yoked two red steeds and two ruddy steeds, windsped-, thy roar was like a bulls'. Thou with smokebannered- flame attackest forest trees. Let us not in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm. 11 Then at thy roar the very birds are terrified, when, eatingup- the grass, thy sparks fly forth abroad. Then is it easy for thee and thy car to pass. Let us not in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm. 12 He hath the Power to soothe Mitra and Varuna: wonderful is the Maruts' wrath when they descend. Be gracious; let their hearts he turned to us again. Let us not in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm. 13 Thou art a God, thou art the wondrous Friend of Gods, the Vasu of the Vasus, fair in sacrifice. Under, thine own most wide protection may we dwell. Let us not in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm. 14 This is thy grace that, kindled in thine own abode, invoked with Soma thou soundest forth most benign, Thou givest wealth and treasure to the worshipper. Let us not in thy friendship, Agni, suffer harm. 15 To whom thou, Lord of goodly riches, grantest freedom from every sin with perfect wholeness, Whom with good strength thou quickenest, with children and wealth ? may we be they, Eternal Being. 16 Such, Agni, thou who knowest all good fortune, God, lengthen here the days of our existence. This prayer of ours may Varuna grant, and Mitra, and Aditi and Sindhu, Earth and Heaven. Wilson translation: 1.094.01 To him who is worthy of praise, and all-knowing, we construct, with our minds, this hymn, as (a workman makes) a car; happy is our understanding when engaged in his adoration; let us not suffer injury, Agni, through your friendship. [The refrain: sakhye ma_ ris.a_ma_ vayam tava = may we not be injured in or by your friendship, i.e. do you preserve us. 1.094.02 He, for whom you sacrifice, accomplishes (his objects), abides free from aggression, and enjoys (wealth, the source of) strength; he prospers, and poverty never approaches him; let us not suffer injury, Agni, through your friendship. 1.094.03 May we be able to kindle you; perfect the rite, for through you the gods partake of the offered oblations; bring hither the A_dityas, for we love them; let us not suffer injury, Agni, through your friendship. [A_dityas: sons of Aditi, i.e. all the gods]. 1.094.04 We bring fuel, we offer oblations, reminding you of the successive seasons (of worship); do you thoroughly complete the rite, in order to prolong our lives; let us not suffer injury, Agni, through your friendship. 1.094.05 His genial (flames), the preservers of mankind, spread around, and both bipeds and quadrupeds are enlivened by his rays; shining with various lustre, and illuminating (the world by night), you are superior to the dawn; let us not, Agni, suffer injury through your friendship. 1.094.06 You are the sacrificing or the invoking priest, you are the principal (presenter of the offering), the director (of the ceremonies), their performer, or by birth the family priest; thus conversant with all the priestly functions, you perform perfectly the rite; let us not, Agni, suffer injury through your friendship. [Agni sis the chief of the sixteen priests engaged at solemn sacrifices. He is the adhvaryu, the reciter of the Yajus, here defined as the presenter of the offerings; he is the hota_, invoking priest; he is the prastota_ or maitra_varun.a, whose duty it is to direct the other priests what to do and when to perform their functions; he is the pota_, priest and hereditary purohita (or brahma_ of a ceremony), being to men what Br.haspati is to the gods. (br.haspatirdeva_na_m brahma_ham manus.ya_n.a_m: Taittiri_ya Bra_hman.a 3.7.6.3)]. 1.094.07 You are of graceful form, and alike on every side, and, although remote, shine as if nigh; you see, divine Agni, beyond the darkness of night; let us not, Agni suffer injury through your friendship. 1.094.08 Gods, let the chariot of the offerer of the libation be foremost; let our denunciations overwhelm the wicked; understand and fulfil my words let us not suffer injury, Agni, through your friendship. [Deva: all gods are but portions or members of Agni; pu_rva = before; explaiend as mukhya, principal]. 1.094.09 Overcome with your fatal (weapons) the wicked and the impious, all who are enemies, whether distant or near; and then provide an easy (path) for the sacrificer who praises you; let us not, Agni, suffer injury through your friendship. 1.094.10 When you have yoked the bright red horses (ete vai deva_s'va_h: Taittiri_ya Sam.hita_ 1.7.4.3), swift as the wind, to your car, your roar is like that of a bull, and you enwrap the forest trees with a banner of smoke; let us not, Agni, suffer injury through your friendship. 1.094.11 At your roaring, even the birds are terrified; when your flames consuming the grass, have spread in all directions, (the wood) is easy of access to you and to your chariots; let us not, Agni, suffer injury through your friendship. 1.094.12 May this, (your adorer) enjoy the support of Mitra and of Varun.a; wonderful is the fury of the Maruts; (dwellers in the region) below (the heavens), encourage us, and may their minds again (be gracious) to us; let us not suffer injury, Agni, through your friendship. [Below the heavens: below svargaloka, or in the antariks.a or firmament]. 1.094.13 You, brilliant (Agni), are the especial friend of the gods; you, who are graceful in the sacrifice are the confirmer of all riches; may we be present in your most spacious chamber of sacrifice; let us not, Agni, suffer injury through your friendship. 1.094.14 Pleasant is it to you when you are lighted in your own abode, and propitiated by libations, are praised (by the priests); then, much delighted, you give rewards and riches to the worshipper; let us not, Agni, suffer injury through your friendship. 1.094.15 (Fortunate is the worshipper) to whom, (assiduos) in all pious works, you, possessor of riches, invisible Agni, grant exemption from sin, whom you associate with auspicious strength, may he be (enriched) by you with wealth that comprehends progeny. 1.094.16 Do you, divine Agni, who kno what is good fortune, on this occasion prolong our existence, and may Mitra, Varun.a, Aditi, ocean, earth and heaven, preserve it to us. [The second pa_da of this hymn terminates the following su_ktas from 95 to 101 (with teo exceptions). Sindhu: divinity presiding over, or identified with, flowing water; and it may mean either the sea, or flowing steams collectively, or the river Sindhu. Pr.thivi_ and Dyu are the personified earth and heaven. These are requested to honour, i.e. to preserve or perpetuate, whatever blessing has been asked for (tan ma_mahantam); fr. maha = to venerate or worship; tad = that, refers to a_yus or life].
The decipherment of Nagwada seal impression and a stamp seal reported by Suzanne Harris in her doctoral dissertation at UPenn, Pennsylvania, conclusively proves the function of Indus Script inscriptions to document metalwork wealth created and traded. As Suzanne Harris notes "(Nagwada) population participated in a greater Mature Harappan economic and administrative network."
This monograph demonstrates the essential semantic and cultural unity of ALL Indian languages. There was no language-divide between North and South, East and West. The Sarasvati-Sindhu Civilization area was a sprachbund, 'speech union' or linguistic area where many language speakers absorbed language features from one another and made them their own. There cannot be a stronger evidence for NATIONAL UNITY than this linguistic affirmation of the Meluhha sprachbund. Meluhha simply means mispronunciation, thus reinforcing dialectical pronunciation variants of core vocabularies of ALL Indian languages. Meluhha is cognate with Mleccha in ancient Bharatiya texts. These Meluhha people created the mlecchita vikalpa 'cypher writing' described as one of the 64 arts to be taught to the young, by Vatsyayana in his VidyA Samuddesa text.
Chalcoithic settlements of North Gujarat
Almost all sites have reported carnelian, 'akkikkal' beads. This carnelian is found as a ring with an inscription at Keeladi.The Indus Script reading of the hieroglyph is: badhi 'boar' rebus: badhi 'worker in wood and iron' baDiga 'artificer'. This carnelian ring of Keeladi demonstrates that people of Gujarat Sarasvati_Sindhu civilization settlements moved south along the coastline and reached Keeladi.
This is evidenced in a textual reference from Purananuru, discussed in Section 3. These evidences demonstrate the essential semantic and cultural unity between language speakers of Gujarat and language speakers of Tamil Nadu of centuries Before Common Era.
Section 1. Nagwada seal impression
Field symbol:short-horned bull: balar, barad 'ox' Rebus: bharata 'metal alloy' (5 copper, 4 zinc and 1 tin)
Text message:
dāṭu 'cross' rebus: dhatu 'mineral ore'
kuṭi 'curve' rebus: kuṭhi 'smelter' (Santali)kuṭi 'curve; rebus: कुटिल kuṭila, katthīl (8 parts copper, 2 parts tin) bronze
muh 'bun ingot shape' rebus: mũhã̄ 'ingot'
ḍhaṁkaṇa 'lid' rebus dhakka 'excellent, bright, blazing metal article'
खांडा khāṇḍā A jag, notch, or indentation (as upon the edge of a tool' rebus: khaṇḍa 'implements
sal 'splinter' rebus: sal 'workshop'
kolmo 'rice plant' rebus:kolimi 'smithy, forge'
Section 2. Nagwada stamp seal
Four dotted circles: gaṇḍa 'set of four' (Santali) rebus: khaṇḍa 'equipment'(Santali)
Hieroglyph: Dotted circle:dhã̄ī 'strand' rebus: dhatu 'mineral ore' dhāˊtu 'ore of red metal' PLUS Hieroglhyph: circle: vr̥ttá ʻ turned ʼ RV., ʻ rounded ʼ ŚBr. 2. ʻ completed ʼ MaitrUp., ʻ passed, elapsed (of time) ʼ KauṣUp. 3. n. ʻ conduct, matter ʼ ŚBr., ʻ livelihood ʼ Hariv. [√vr̥t1]1. Pa. vaṭṭa -- ʻ round ʼ, n. ʻ circle ʼ; Pk. vaṭṭa -- , vatta -- , vitta -- , vutta -- ʻ round ʼ; L. (Ju.) vaṭ m. ʻ anything twisted ʼ; Si. vaṭa ʻ round ʼ, vaṭa -- ya ʻ circle, girth (esp. of trees) ʼ; Md. va'ʻ round ʼ GS 58; -- Paš.ar. waṭṭəwīˊk, waḍḍawik ʻ kidney ʼ ( -- wĭ̄kvr̥kká -- ) IIFL iii 3, 192? rebus: vṛtta, va 'wealth business'; Pa. vatta -- n. ʻ duty, office ʼ; Pk. vaṭṭa -- , vatta -- , vitta -- , vutta -- n. ʻ livelihood ʼ; P. buttā m. ʻ means ʼ; Ku. buto ʻ daily labour, wages ʼ; N. butā ʻ means, ability ʼ; H. oūtā m. ʻ power ʼ; Si. vaṭa ʻ subsistence, wages ʼ.(CDIAL 12069). Together rebus: dhāvaḍa 'smelter',
"One Indus clay seal impression depicting a bull (IAR 1987–88:20) and one steatite stamp seal (inscribed with serie recente style circles) were found here (Figure 5.27). A study by Randall Law (2008:400) suggests the steatite is from a source similar to a seal found at Bagasra, which was probably acquired locally. Agate cube weights were also found, mostly in pits. These objects prove beyond a doubt that this population participated in a greater Mature Harappan economic and administrative network." (Suzanne Harris, 2011, ibid., p. 208) Abstract Nine relatively obscure sites in the northern plain of Gujarat, India: Loteshwar, Santhli, Datrana, Nagwada, Langhnaj, Zekhada, Ratanpura and Kanewal; demonstrate a broad range of material culture traditions present in this region throughout the fourth through second millennia BC. This diversity results from the numerous economic strategies employed by the inhabitants of this region, the most important of which is mobility. Most of the sites reviewed in this work are the remains of temporary occupations, which are usually ascribed to pastoral nomads. Although pastoralism was an important subsistence strategy, a closer examination of the material culture and features at these sites shows there was a spectrum of approaches to mobility, which were related to different economic strategies. This work will show that despite many similarities, these sites do not represent a homogenous set of pastoralist camps. Instead, they document manifold activities, reflected through the uses of material culture and space. Section 3. Reference to Dwaraka as Tuvarai in an ancient Sangam text and migration from Sarasvati-Sindhu CIvilization to Tamil Nadu See:
Ayasipur is a Vedic expression. अयस् n. iron , metal RV. &c अयस्मय (अयोमय) a. (-यीf.) Ved. Made of iron or of any metal. -यी N. of one of the three habita- tions of Asuras. pur पुर् f. (Nom. sing. पूः; instr. du. पूर्भ्याम्) 1 A town, fortified town; thus ayasipur refers to a fortification made of stone or metal. (पूरण्यभिव्यक्तमुखप्रसादा R.16.23)
துவரை² tuvarai, n. See துவாரகை. உவரா வீகைத் துவரை யாண்டு (புறநா. 201). துவாரகை tuvārakai, n. < dvārakā. The capital of Kṛṣṇa on the western side of Gujarat, supposed to have been submerged by the sea, one of catta-puri, q. v.; சத்தபுரியுளொன் றாயதும் கடலாற்கொள்ளப்பட்ட தென்று கருதப்படுவதும் கண்ணபிரான் அரசுபுரிந்ததுமான நகரம்.
This Vedic expression ayasipur is consistent with the description of Dwaraka in Purananuru as a fortification with walls made of copper (metal).
இவர் யார் என்குவை ஆயின் இவரே ஊருடன் இரவலர்க்கு அருளித் தேருடன்
முல்லைக்கு ஈத்த செல்லா நல்லிசை படுமணி யானைப் பறம்பின் கோமான் நெடுமாப் பாரி மகளிர் யானே தந்தை தோழன் இவர் என் மகளிர் அந்தணன் புலவன் கொண்டு வந்தனனே நீயே வட பால் முனிவன் தடவினுள் தோன்றிச் செம்பு புனைந்து இயற்றிய சேண் நெடும் புரிசை உவரா ஈகைத் துவரை யாண்டு நாற்பத்து ஒன்பது வழி முறை வந்த வேளிருள் வேள விறல் போர் அண்ணல் தார் அணி யானைச் சேட்டு இருங்கோவே ஆண் கடன் உடைமையின் பாண் கடன் ஆற்றிய ஒலியற் கண்ணிப் புலிகடிமாஅல் யான் தர இவரைக் கொண்மதி வான் கவித்து இரும் கடல் உடுத்த இவ் வையகத்து அரும் திறல் பொன்படு மால் வரைக் கிழவ வென் வேல் உடலுநர் உட்கும் தானைக் கெடல்அரும் குரைய நாடு கிழவோயே !
If you ask who they are, they are his daughters, he who granted cities to those who came in need and earned great fame for gifting a chariot to the jasmine vine to climb, he who owned elephants with jingling bells, the lord of Parampu, the great king Pāri. They are my daughters now. As for me, I am their father’s friend, a Brahmin, a poet who has brought them here.
You are the best Vēlir of the Vēlir clan, with a heritage of forty nine generations of Vēlirs who gave without limits, who ruled Thuvarai with its long walls that seemed to be made of copper, the city that appeared in the sacrificial pit of a northern sage (Yaja). King who is victorious in battles!
Great king with garlanded elephants! Pulikatimāl with a bright garland who knows what a man’s responsibility is, and what you can do for bards! I am offering them. Please accept them. Lord of the sky high mountain that yields gold! You whose strength cannot be equaled on the earth that is covered by an arched sky and surrounded by the ocean, you whose army puts fear into enemies with victorious spears! O ruler of a land that can never be ruined!
Irunkovel is supposed to be 49th generation of a king from (Thuvarai) Dwaraka. It can mean two things. Assuming about 30 years per generation, 1500 years earlier Dwaraka which had walls made of copper. Dating the early phase of Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization to ca. 3500 BCE, and the submergence of Dwaraka to ca. 1900 BCE (a date indicative of the drying up of Vedic River Sarasvati due to migrations of Sutlej and Yamuna rivers which were tributaries bringing in glacier waters), which necessitated the movements of Sarasvati's children down the coastline to Kerala, this text places Sangam literature text of Purananuru to ca. 400 BCE.
Migration from Tuvarai (Dwaraka) is attested in a 12th century inscription (Pudukottai State inscriptions, No.
120) cited by Avvai S. Turaicaami in Puranaanuru, II (SISSW Publishing Soc., Madras, 1951).
•துவரை மாநகர் நின்ருபொந்த தொன்மை பார்த்துக்கிள்ளிவேந்தன் நிகரில் தென் கவரி நாடு தன்னில் நிகழ்வித்த நிதிவாளர்
Excerpts from Jayasree Saranathan's blogpost
The first one - the most obvious one which many readers of Sangam texts would have known - is found in poet Kapilar's song on the VeL king, Irungo veL
( இருங்கோ வேள்) compiled as the 201st verse in Purananuru. I will take up the explanation later in the series. In the current post I want to focus on a description of copper plated walls or walls made of copper of Dwaraka.
We know that Dwaraka and Gujarat present a very rich archeological source for IVC. The contention of Dr Parpola and the Dravidian politicians of Tamilnadu is that Tamils have descended form the IVC locations of North India. The verse by poet Kapilar in fact traces the origins of the King IrungoveL to Dwaraka. He says that he belonged to the 49th generation of the king who was born of the Sacrificial Fire conducted by the sage of the North. This king ruled Dwaraka, so says the poet. Reserving the other details of this verse for a future post, I am now concentrating on another description in that song.
Kapilar describes Dwaraka as being surrounded by walls made of copper.
நீயே, வடபால் முனிவன் தடவினுள் தோன்றிச்,செம்பு புனைந்து இயற்றிய சேண்நெடும்புரிசை, உவரா ஈகைத், துவரை ஆண்டு,நாற்பத்து ஒன்பது வழிமுறை வந்த வேளிருள்வேளே!
This means "O king IrungoveL! you were the 49th king in the lineage of the king, who was born of the sacrificial fire conducted by the sage and ruled Dwarka which was surrounded by long / tall walls of copper."
From the commentary that Dr U.Ve.Sa found out form the palm leaf manuscripts :-
"நீ தான் வட பக்கத்து முனிவனுடைய ஓம குண்டத்தின் கண் தோன்றிச் செம்பால்புனைத்து செய்தாலொத்த சேய்மையை உடைத்தாகிய நெடிய மதிலை உடைய துவராவதிஎன்னும் படை வீட்டை ஆண்டு, வெறுப்பில்லாத கொடையினை உடையராய்நாற்பத்தொன்பது தலைமுறை தொன்றுபட்டு வந்த வேள்களுள் வைத்து வேளாய்உள்ளாய்!"
This king was not in Dwaraka when Kapilar met him and sang this verse. He was ruling some part of the western ghats in present day's Karnataka. This Vel's kingdom was different from the Tamil lands of the 3 kings (Chera, Chola and Pandya). The next verse was on the same king sung by Kapilar in which he describes his land in the hills. This king's palace was not surrounded by walls of copper. Copper walls were there in the kingdom of his ancestors in Dwaraka.
Assuming that 3 kings lived per century, we can say that 1600 years have passed by the time this 49th king had come into being. The period of this king is not exactly known, but can be deciphered from Kapilar's other connections. Kapilar was a close friend of another VeL king, Paari who was killed by the 3 Tamil kings. Kapilar took care of Parri's orphaned daughters and approached another Vel king, IrungoveL to request him to marry the two daughters of Paari. This verse contains that request.
If we know the time period of Paari, we can ascertain the original period of the king of Dwaraka mentioned in this verse. Paari and other Vel kings were regarded as the 3rd and last group of Patrons (கடை ஏழு வள்ளல்கள்).
The Vel lineage seems to have ended by the time Silapapdhikaram was written.
Silappadhikaram is about the Cheran king Neduncheralaathan (நெடுஞ்சேரலாதன்) who brought the stone from Himalayas to construct a temple for Kannagi. He conquered kings of the North and brought them as prisoners (They were made to carry the stone).
He later released them and ordered his deputy to keep them in the palace of the Vel king, by name Aavikko (வேளாவிக்கோ).
The king showed the palace of Velaavikko surrounded by cool waters and gardens in the city of Vanji (his capital city).
(Vanji is perhaps Kochi of Kerala.)
From this we can say that the Vels were there before 1st century AD. 1600 years before that period coincides with the time of Dwarkan excavations given by Prof S.R Rao on Bet Dwaraka.Bet Dwaraka was a later-built city which is dated at 1520 BC by Prof Rao
This date does not coincide with Krishna's date as we saw in the previous post in this series. Krishna's time precedes by another 1500 years.
Krishna's Dwaraka could have been very much under the sea as there is marine archeological proof of very old habitations - now sunken - of a period, 5000 years to 7500 years ago.
The Vel king of this sangam verse might have had his lineage traced to the Dwarakan king of Bet Dwaraka.
Further explanations will be discussed in other posts in this series.
Here I want to throw light on similar mention of copper walls in other Sangam texts also.
The areas connected with such walls were in Tamil lands.
Use of copper and construction of copper walls or copper plated walls had been there in Dwaraka and in Tamil nadu as well.
The unearthed artifacts in IVC sites include copper items and copper statues.
The mold used for making statues that are found in IVC are the same as the molds that are still being used today.
It is inferred from this that the use of copper for various purposes had been there since 2000 BC.
Similar use in IVC areas and in Tamilnadu shows that either the knowledge of it and the technology to put into use had been widespread throughout India for 1000s of years (or 4000 years at the minimum)
or the people from Dwaraka (whose descendants ruled Tamil lands with the titular name VeL) brought that knowledge to Tamilnadu.
Whatever it could be,
the import of these verses is that the so-called Dravidians of IVC could have closer connection to Vel kings of Dwaraka
than with the Tamils of Tamilnadu.
The Dwarakan link to this king is traced to the one born out of sacrificial fire.
https://tinyurl.com/taqhztt -- Karaṇi, Citragupta & accounting for अष्टवसु 'eight wealths' of the nation The hieroglyphs of Indus Script are about 900 (about 200 pictorial motifs and about 700 'signs' of the script). The pictorial meanings of these 900 hieroglyphs and the corresponding, similar sounding 'wealth-related' words of Meluhha, lingua franca of the civilization yields a vocabulary of over 1800 words and expressions denoted as 'hypertexts' or 'combinations of hieroglyphs'. These hypertexts unravel due to the decipherment of over 8000 Indus Script inscriptions dated from 3300 BCE. I submit that these 1800 words constitute the core, substrate vocabulary of the people of Sarasvati Civilization who documented their wealth-creating activities on Indus Script inscriptions. Multiplied by over 20 languages which provide varieties of phonetic forms of the underlying word signified by a 'hieroglyph' and its rebus reading related to 'wealth-creation' activities, we get access to over 36000 words of Indian sprachbund, 'speech union' or linguistic arearelated to economic activities of the people -- artisans, seafaring merchants and guilds -- engaged in wealth-creation activities of the nation. We get to the core vocabulary to explain the formation of ALL Indian languages and to explain why the pronunciation variants occurred over millennia, while maintaining the cultural and semantic unity of the messages conveyed by the hieroglyphs. For example, the most frequently occurring hieroglyph of the Indus Script is
karṇakḥ कर्णकः Ved. A prominence; handle; kárṇa m. ʻ ear, handle of a vessel ʼ RV., ʻ end, tip (?) ʼ RV. ii 34, 3. (CDIAL 2830)kárṇaka m. ʻ projection on the side of a vessel, handle ʼ ŚBr. [kárṇa -- ] Pa. kaṇṇaka -- ʻ having ears or corners ʼ; Wg. kaṇə ʻ ear -- ring ʼ NTS xvii 266; S. kano m. ʻ rim, border ʼ; P. kannā m. ʻ obtuse angle of a kite ʼ (→ H. kannā m. ʻ edge, rim, handle ʼ); N. kānu ʻ end of a rope for supporting a burden ʼ; B. kāṇā ʻ brim of a cup ʼ, G. kānɔ m.; M. kānā m. ʻ touch -- hole of a gun ʼ.(CDIAL 2831) karṇika कर्णिक a.1 Having ears. -2 Having a helm. -कः A steersman. karṇadhāra m. ʻ helmsman ʼ Suśr. [kárṇa -- , dhāra -- 1]Pa. kaṇṇadhāra -- m. ʻ helmsman ʼ; Pk. kaṇṇahāra -- m. ʻ helmsman, sailor ʼ; H. kanahār m. ʻ helmsman, fisherman ʼ.(CDIAL 2836) കണക്കുkaṇakkụ T. M. (ഗണം, ഗണിതം) 1. Computation, account. ക. അടെക്ക, ഒപ്പിച്ചു കേള്പിക്ക Nasr. po. ക. ഒക്ക ഇന്നു തീര്ക്കണം TP. to settle accounts. ക. പറക, ബോധിപ്പി ക്ക TR. to give account. കണക്കധികാരി accountant.കണക്കന് 1. accountant കണക്കപ്പിളള, കണ ക്കപ്പിളളച്ചന് TR. നാട്ടധികാരി കണക്ക പ്പിളള KU. Pudushēry Nambi in Kōlanāḍu. — an East-Indian (mod.) 2. a class of slaves കണക്കന്റെ കഞ്ഞി കുടിക്കാതെ prov. കണ ക്കന്റെ ഭോഷന്; also കണക്കച്ചെറുമന് കണക്കും കാര്യവും (നടക്കയില്ല TR.) despatch of public business, also അവന്റെ കയ്യും കണക്കും കണ്ടാറെ on inspecting his office.കണക്കുസാരം a mathematical treatise of Nīlacaṇṭha.കണക്കെഴുത്തു office of accountant. അംശംക'കാരന് MR.കണക്കോല accounts. (Malayalam) kaṇakkaṉ கணக்கன்kaṇakkaṉ , n. < gaṇaka. [M. kaṇakkaṉ.] 1. Accountant, book-keeper; கணக் கெழுதுவோன். (திருவாலவா. 30, 22.) 2. See கணக்கப்பிள்ளை, 1. 3. A certain caste; ஒரு சாதி. (இலக். வி. 52, உரை.) 4. Arithmetician; கணக்கில் வல்லவன். (W.) 5. One who is well versed in the philosophy of religion, or in any science; சாஸ்திரம் வல்லோன். சமயக்கணக்கர் (மணி. 27, 2). karṇam கர்ணம்²karṇam , n. < karaṇa. 1. Village accountantship; கிராமக்கணக்குவேலை. 2. Village accountant; கிராமக்கணக்கன். karaṇikam கரணிகம்karaṇikam , n. < karaṇa. 1. Intellectual power, any one of the four anta-k-karaṇam, q.v.; அந்தக்கரணம். (W.) 2. A kind of dramatic action or dancing; கூத்தின்விகற் பம். (W.) 3. Copulation; கலவி. (சங். அக.) 4. [T. karaṇikamu.] Office of accountant. See கருணீகம். Loc.karuṇīkam கருணீகம்karuṇīkam , n. < karaṇa. [T. karaṇikamu.] Office of village accountant or karṇam; கிராமக்கணக்குவேலை.karuṇīkaṉகருணீகன்karuṇīkaṉ,n. < id. 1. Village accountant;கிராமக்கணக்கன். கடுகை யொருமலை யாகக் . . . காட்டுவோன் கருணீகனாம்(அறப். சத. 86). 2. A South Indian caste of accountants;கணக்குவேலைபார்க்கும் ஒருசாதி.
kāviti காவிதிkāviti , n. 1. Ancient title bestowed on Vēḷāḷas by Pāṇḍya kings; வேளாளர்க்குப் பாண்டியர் கொடுத்துவந்த ஒரு பட்டம். (தொல். பொ. 30, உரை.) 2. Title conferred on Vaišya ladies; வைசியமாதர்பெறும் பட்டவகை. எட்டி காவிதிப் பட் டந்தாங்கிய மயிலியன் மாதர் (பெருங். இலாவாண. 3, 144). 3. Minister; மந்திரி. (திவா.) 4. Accountant caste; கணக்கர் சாதி. (சூடா.) 5. Collector of revenues; வரிதண்டும் அரசாங்கத்தலைவர். kāviti-p-pū காவிதிப்பூkāviti-p-pū , n. < id. +. Gold flower, the badge of the title kāviti; காவிதி யென்னும் பட்டத்துடன் அரசர் அளிக்கும் பொற்பூ. (தொல். எழுத். 154, உரை.)kāvitimai காவிதிமைkāvitimai , n. < id. Accountant's work; கணக்குவேலை. காவிதிமைசெய்ய ஒருவ னுக்கு அரையன் மணவிலிங்கனான செம்பியன் பெருங் காவிதிக்குப் பங்கு அரையும் (S.I.I. ii, 277).kāviti-p-puravu காவிதிப்புரவுkāviti-p-puravu , n. < காவிதி +. Land bestowed upon the king's ministers; அரசாற் காவிதியர்க்குக் கொடுக்கப்பட்ட ஊர். (நன். 158, மயிலை.) (Tamil)కరణముkaraṇamu. [Skt.] n. A village clerk, a writer, an accountant. వాడు కూత కరణముగాని వ్రాతకరణముకాడు he has talents for speaking but not for writing. స్థలకరణము the registrar of a district. కరణము n. Instrument, means. కొరముట్టు. An organ of sense. ఇంద్రియము. Marking or causing, as in ప్రియంకరణము endearing. స్థూలంకరణము fattening, శుభగంకరణము fortunate. కరణచతుష్టయము the mind, intellect, volition and self-consciousness. మనోబుద్ధిచిత్తాహంకారములు. కరణత్రయము thought, word and deed. మనస్సు. వాక్కు, కర్మము. త్రికరణశుద్ధిగా completely, absolutely, entirely. కరణీయముkaraṇīyamu. adj. Fit to be performed, worthy to be done చేయదగిన. కరణికము or కరణీకముkaranikamu. Clerkship: the office of a Karanam or clerk.చిత్రగుప్తుడుchitra-guptuḍu. n. Name of an accountant of Yama the god of Death. యమునివద్ద లెక్క వ్రాయువాడు. కాయస్థుడుkāyasthuḍu. [Skt.] n. A man belonging to the writer caste. An accountant. కరణము.(Telugu) कुळकरणी kuḷakaraṇī m (कुल & कारणी S) An officer of a village under the पांटील. His business is to keep the accounts of the cultivators with Government and all the public records. कूळघडणीkūḷaghaḍaṇī f The record annually prepared by the कुळकरणी for each कूळ or Ryot, exhibiting his lands and means and tillage and dues &38;c. in his relation to Government.नाडकरणी nāḍakaraṇī, नारकरणी nārakaraṇī m An hereditary district-accountant. देशकुळकरण dēśakuḷakaraṇa n The office of देशकुळकरणी.देशकुळकरणी dēśakuḷakaraṇī m An hereditary officer of a Mahál. He frames the general account from the accounts of the several Khots and Kulkarn̤ís of the villages within the Mahál; the district-accountant.अष्टाधिकार (p. 31) aṣṭādhikāra m pl (S) The eight main offices or posts of a village: viz. जलाधिकार Office of bringing or supplying water to public officers and travellers; स्थलाधिकार Office of determining and pointing out the several places of residence, i. e. the office of पाटील or Headman; ग्रामाधिकार Office of supervision of the village trade and general business; कुललेखन Office of keeping the accounts of the Ryots with Government, and of preserving the public records; ब्रह्मासन Office of a sort of bailif, bailiwick; दंडविधिनियोग Office of magistrate or justice; पौरोहित्य Office of the family or village-priest; ज्योतिषी Office of the village-astronomer. The above lofty designations are according to the following authoritative Shlok--जलाधि- कारश्र्च स्थलाधिकारो ग्रामाधिकारः कुललेखनंच ॥ ब्र- ह्मासन दंडविधेर्नियोगो पौरोहितं ज्योतिषनष्टमेवं ॥ 1 ॥ but the popular or vulgar terms are 1 कोळीपणा (concrete is कोळी), 2 पाटिलकी (पाटील), 3 दे- शमुखी, महाजनकी, &38;c. (देशमुख with महाजन &38;c.), 4 कुळकरण (कुळकरणी), 5 वर्त्तकी (वर्त्तक), 6 धर्माधिकार (धर्माधिकारी), 7 उपाधीक or भटपणा (उपाध्या or भट), 8 जोशीपणा (जोशी). 2 Applied humorously to express the daily operations or business of the body--ablution, inunction, eating, evacuating, sleeping &38;c.(Marathi) କରଣି ଅକ୍ଷର— Karaṇi akshara ଦେ. ବି— ତାଳପତ୍ରରେ ଲେଖନ ଦ୍ବାରା ଲେଖିବା ପରିଶ୍ରମକୁ ଲାଘବ କରିବା ନିମନ୍ତେ ବ୍ୟବହୃତ କେତେକ ଛଟା ଅକ୍ଷର ଓ ସାଙ୍କେତିକ ଚିହ୍ନ—A running in script in oriya and abbreviations used by the Karaṇas to save trouble in writing. [ଦ୍ର—କରଣି ଅକ୍ଷରମାନ 'ଛଟା ଅକ୍ଷର'ତଳେ ଦେଖାଇ ଦିଆ ୟାଇଅଛି।] କରଣିଆଁ— Karaṇiāñ ଦେ. ବିଣ— 1। କରଣ ଜାତି ବା ସମାଜସମ୍ବନ୍ଧୀଯ— 1. Relating to Karaṇ caste or society. (ଯଥା—କରଣିଆଁ ଢପ, କରଣିଆଁ ଲେଖା)2। କରଣ ସମାଜରେ ପ୍ରଚଳିତ—2. In vogue in the Karaṇa Society of Orissa.
କରଣି କାଟୁ କରିବା— Karaṇi kāṭu karibā ଦେ. ବି— (ଅମୁକର) କ୍ଷମତା ବା ମହିମା ଅପ୍ରବିହତ ରୂପେ ସଫଳ ହେବା—One's authority being felt; the ascendancy of a person's influence. (ଯଥା—ଆଜିକାଲି ବିଲାତି ଦଳକଢ଼ା ବିଷଯରେ ଆମ ସବ୍ଡିଭିଜନ ସାହେବଙ୍କ କରଣି ଭାରି କାଟୁ କରୁଛି।)
କିରାଣି ଖାନା— Kirāṇi khānā [synonym(s): কেরানিখানাकेरानिखाना]ବୈଦେ. ବି. (ପର୍ତ୍ତୁଗିଜ୍. ଏସ୍କ୍ରେ ଭେନ୍ତୀ ଓ ଆ. ଖାନା)— 1। ଅଫିସ୍ର ୟେଉଁ ଅଂଶରେ କିରାନିମାନେ କାମ କରନ୍ତି—1. The part of an office where clerks work. 2। ଜିଲାର କଲେକ୍ଟରଙ୍କ କଚେରିର ଇଂରାଜି କିରାନିମାନଙ୍କର ଅଫିସ୍—2. The English-office of the Collector of a district.
କିରାଣିଗିରି— Kirāṇigiri [synonym(s): কেরানিগিরিकेरानिगिरि]ବୈଦେ. ବି.— 1। କିରାନିର କକାର୍ଯ୍ୟାର୍ଯ୍ୟ— 1. Cherkship; post of writer. 2। ଲେଖକବୃତ୍ତି—2. The profession of a writer or a clerk.
କରଣମ୍— Karaṇam ପ୍ରାଦେ. (ଗଞାମ) ବି. (ସଂ. କରଣ; ତେ. କରଣମ୍)— ଗ୍ରାମର ରାଜକୀଯ ହିସାବ ଲେଖକ—A village accountant under the Government.
କରଣ ମର୍ଯ୍ୟାଦା— Karaṇa marj̄yādā ଦେ. ବି— 1। ଉତ୍କଳୀଯ କରଣ ସମାଜରେ ପ୍ରଚଳିତ ସାମାଜିକ ଆଡ଼ମ୍ବର ଓ ରୀତି— 1. Grandeur and usages obtaining in the Karaṇa society of Orissa. 2। (ଲକ୍ଷଣାର୍ଥ) ସାଡ଼ମ୍ବର ରୀତି— 2. (figurative) Outward grandeur (generally).
କରଣ ସାଆନ୍ତ— Karaṇa sāānta ଦେ. ବି— 1। କରଣଜାତୀଯ ବିଶିଷ୍ଟ ବ୍ୟକ୍ତି— 1. A nobleman of the Karaṇa caste. 2। ବର ସଙ୍ଗେ ବରୟାତ୍ରୀରୂପେ ଆଗତ ବରଙ୍କ ବନ୍ଧୁ— ବାନ୍ଧିବବିଶିଷ୍ଟ କରଣ ବ୍ୟକ୍ତି— 2. A noted relative of a bridegroom of the Karaṇa caste who accompanies the bridegroom to the marriage.
अष्ट ( √ अक्ष् ; cf.निर्- √अक्ष्) " marked , branded " , only in comp. with -कर्ण (Monier-Williams) vasu वसु a. Sweet. -2 Dry. -3 Ved. Wealthy, rich. -4 Ved. Good. -n. [वस्-उन् Uṇ.1.1] 1 Wealth, riches; स्वयं प्रदुग्धे$स्य गुणैरुपस्नुता वसूपमानस्य वसूनि मेदिनी Ki.1.18; R.8.31; 9.6 वस्वीशाद् वसुनिकरं (लब्ध्वा) धृतानुरागा Rām. ch.7.58. -2 A jewel, gem. -3 Gold. -4 Water; वसु काल उपादत्ते काले चायं विमुञ्चति Bhāg.4.16.6. -5 A thing, sub- stance; त्रात्वार्थितो जगति पुत्रपदं च लेभे दुग्धा वसूनि वसुधा सकलानि येन Bhāg.2.7.9; Mb.12.98.2.(Apte)वसु N. of the gods (as the " good or bright ones " , esp. of the आदित्यs , मरुत्s , अश्विन्s , इन्द्र , उषस् , रुद्र , वायु , विष्णु , शिव , and कुबेर) RV.; of a partic. class of gods (whose number is usually eight , and whose chief is इन्द्र , later अग्नि and विष्णु ; they form one of the nine गणs or classes enumerated under गण-देवताq.v. ; the eight वसुs were originally personifications , like other Vedic deities , of natural phenomena , and are usually mentioned with the other गणs common in the वेद , viz. the eleven रुद्रs and the twelve आदित्यs , constituting with them and with द्यौस् , " Heaven " , and पृथिवी , " Earth " [or , according to some , with इन्द्र and प्रजा-पति , or , according to others , with the two अश्विन्s] , the thirty-three gods to which reference is frequently made ; the names of the वसुs , according to the विष्णु-पुराण , are , 1. आप [connected with अप् , " water "] ; 2. ध्रुव , " the Pole-star " ; 3. सोम , " the Moon " ; 4. धव or धर ; 5. अनिल , " Wind " ; 6. अनल or पावक , " Fire " ; 7. प्रत्यूष , " the Dawn " ; 8. प्रभास , " Light " ; but their names are variously given ; अहन् , " Day " , being sometimes substituted for 1 ; in their relationship to Fire and Light they appear to belong to Vedic rather than Puranic mythology) RV.' n. (in वेदgen.व्/असोस् , व्/अस्वस् and व्/असुनस् ; also pl. , exceptionally m.) wealth , goods , riches , property RV. &c ( °सोष्-पतिm. prob. " the god of wealth or property " AV. i , 12 [ Paipp. ??असोष्-प्° , " the god of life "] ; °सोर्-ध्/आराf. " stream of wealth " , N. of a partic. libation of घृत at the अग्नि-चयनAV. TS. Br. &c ; of the wife of अग्निBhP. ; of the heavenly गङ्गाMBh. ; of sacred bathing-place ib. ; of a kind of vessel ib. ; °सोर्-ध्/आरा-प्रयोगm.N. of wk.); gold --»वसु -वर्म-धर), jewel, gem, pearl --वसु -मेखल (Monier-Williams)
Citragupta, accountant, kāyastha 'merchant-guilds' on sculptues signify Indus Script hypertexts, signifiers of wealth-accounting
https://tinyurl.com/y3dwju97 Citragupta is a quintessential accountant, a keeper of accounts, wealth-accounting ledgers. This tradition is traceable to R̥gveda and Indus Script Corpora. -- Bull anthropomorphs, Kubera of navanidhi fame and Citragupta, accountant.
-- King Citra of R̥gveda (RV VIII.21.18) is Citragupta of Hindu tradition, a scribe, wealth-ledger accountant of Indus Script Cipher tradition. -- Citragupta is born of kāya, 'the body of Brahma' and hence, called kāyasta, 'guild of merchants'. -- The name citragupta is instructive; citra signifies hieroglyphic writing and gupta signifies a cipher andis a synonym of mlecchita vikalpa 'alternative messaging by mleccha,meluhha 'copper artisans, dialect-speakers who mispronounce words and expressions'. -- Lotus stalk held on the hands of Varuna, Kubera, Bull anthropomorphs, Citragupta signify tāmarasa 'lotus' rebus: tāmra 'copper'. This monograph demonstrates that the Indus Script Cipher tradition continues into historical periods and evidenced on rendition of bull anthropomorphs, Kubera and Citragupta on sculptural friezes. Bull anthropomorphs, Kubera, Citragupta sculptures hold lotus stalks to signify writing instruments. Hieroglyph: stalk: खोंड khōṇḍa A variety of जोंधळा., holcus sorghum (Marathi) Rebus: kō̃da कोँद 'potter's kiln' (Kashmiri) kāˊṇḍa (kāṇḍá -- TS.) m.n. ʻ single joint of a plant ʼ AV., ʻ arrow ʼ MBh., ʻ cluster, heap ʼ (in tr̥ṇa -- kāṇḍa -- Pāṇ. Kāś.). [Poss. connexion with gaṇḍa -- 2 makes prob. non -- Aryan origin (not with P. Tedesco Language 22, 190 < kr̥ntáti). Prob. ← Drav., cf. Tam. kaṇ ʻ joint of bamboo or sugarcane ʼ EWA i 197]Pa. kaṇḍa -- m.n. ʻ joint of stalk, stalk, arrow, lump ʼ; Pk. kaṁḍa -- , ˚aya -- m.n. ʻ knot of bough, bough, stick ʼ; Ash. kaṇ ʻ arrow ʼ, Kt. kåṇ, Wg. kāṇ, ãdotdot; Pr. kə̃, Dm. kā̆n; Paš. lauṛ. kāṇḍ, kāṇ, ar. kōṇ, kuṛ. kō̃, dar. kã̄ṛ ʻ arrow ʼ, kã̄ṛī ʻ torch ʼ; Shum. kō̃ṛ, kō̃ ʻ arrow ʼ, Gaw. kāṇḍ, kāṇ; Kho. kan ʻ tree, large bush ʼ; Bshk. kāˋ'n ʻ arrow ʼ, Tor. kan m., Sv. kã̄ṛa, Phal. kōṇ, Sh. gil. kōn f. (→ Ḍ. kōn, pl. kāna f.), pales. kōṇ; K. kã̄ḍ m. ʻ stalk of a reed, straw ʼ (kān m. ʻ arrow ʼ ← Sh.?); S. kānu m. ʻ arrow ʼ, ˚no m. ʻ reed ʼ, ˚nī f. ʻ topmost joint of the reed Sara, reed pen, stalk, straw, porcupine's quill ʼ; L. kānã̄ m. ʻ stalk of the reed Sara ʼ, ˚nī˜ f. ʻ pen, small spear ʼ; P. kānnā m. ʻ the reed Saccharum munja, reed in a weaver's warp ʼ, kānī f. ʻ arrow ʼ; WPah. bhal. kān n. ʻ arrow ʼ, jaun. kã̄ḍ; N. kã̄ṛ ʻ arrow ʼ, ˚ṛo ʻ rafter ʼ; A. kã̄r ʻ arrow ʼ; B. kã̄ṛ ʻ arrow ʼ, ˚ṛā ʻ oil vessel made of bamboo joint, needle of bamboo for netting ʼ, kẽṛiyā ʻ wooden or earthen vessel for oil &c. ʼ; Or. kāṇḍa, kã̄ṛ ʻ stalk, arrow ʼ; Bi. kã̄ṛā ʻ stem of muñja grass (used for thatching) ʼ; Mth. kã̄ṛ ʻ stack of stalks of large millet ʼ, kã̄ṛī ʻ wooden milkpail ʼ; Bhoj. kaṇḍā ʻ reeds ʼ; H. kã̄ṛī f. ʻ rafter, yoke ʼ, kaṇḍā m. ʻ reed, bush ʼ (← EP.?); G. kã̄ḍ m. ʻ joint, bough, arrow ʼ, ˚ḍũ n. ʻ wrist ʼ, ˚ḍī f. ʻ joint, bough, arrow, lucifer match ʼ; M. kã̄ḍ n. ʻ trunk, stem ʼ, ˚ḍẽ n. ʻ joint, knot, stem, straw ʼ, ˚ḍī f. ʻ joint of sugarcane, shoot of root (of ginger, &c.) ʼ; Si. kaḍaya ʻ arrow ʼ. -- Deriv. A. kāriyāiba ʻ to shoot with an arrow ʼ.(CDIAL 3023) Rebus: kanda 'fire-altar'.Rebus: kāṇḍā '(metal) equipment'. What does a Bull anthroporph signify? dangra 'bull' *ḍaṅgara1 ʻ cattle ʼ. 2. *daṅgara -- . [Same as ḍaṅ- gara -- 2 s.v. *ḍagga -- 2 as a pejorative term for cattle] 1. K. ḍangur m. ʻ bullock ʼ, L. ḍaṅgur, (Ju.) ḍ̠ãgar m. ʻ horned cattle ʼ; P. ḍaṅgar m. ʻ cattle ʼ, Or. ḍaṅgara; Bi. ḍã̄gar ʻ old worn -- out beast, dead cattle ʼ, dhūr ḍã̄gar ʻ cattle in general ʼ; Bhoj. ḍāṅgar ʻ cattle ʼ; H. ḍã̄gar, ḍã̄grā m. ʻ horned cattle ʼ.2. H. dã̄gar m. = prec.(CDIAL 5526) rebus: dhangar 'blacksmith' (Maithili) became thākur, 'blacksmith' and later royalty. Sculptures of bull anthropomorphs are also shown carrying lotus stalks signifying reed-pens as writing instruments. ṭhakkura m. ʻ idol, deity (cf. ḍhakkārī -- ), ʼ lex., ʻ title ʼ Rājat. [Dis- cussion with lit. by W. Wüst RM 3, 13 ff. Prob. orig. a tribal name EWA i 459, which Wüst considers nonAryan borrowing of śākvará -- : very doubtful] Pk. ṭhakkura -- m. ʻ Rajput, chief man of a village ʼ; Kho. (Lor.) takur ʻ barber ʼ (= ṭ˚ ← Ind.?), Sh. ṭhăkŭr m.; K. ṭhôkur m. ʻ idol ʼ ( ← Ind.?); S. ṭhakuru m. ʻ fakir, term of address between fathers of a husband and wife ʼ; P. ṭhākar m. ʻ landholder ʼ, ludh. ṭhaukar m. ʻ lord ʼ; Ku. ṭhākur m. ʻ master, title of a Rajput ʼ; N. ṭhākur ʻ term of address from slave to master ʼ (f. ṭhakurāni), ṭhakuri ʻ a clan of Chetris ʼ (f. ṭhakurni); A. ṭhākur ʻ a Brahman ʼ, ṭhākurānī ʻ goddess ʼ; B. ṭhākurāni, ṭhākrān, ˚run ʻ honoured lady, goddess ʼ; Or. ṭhākura ʻ term of address to a Brahman, god, idol ʼ, ṭhākurāṇī ʻ goddess ʼ; Bi. ṭhākur ʻ barber ʼ; Mth. ṭhākur ʻ blacksmith ʼ; Bhoj. Aw.lakh. ṭhākur ʻ lord, master ʼ; H. ṭhākur m. ʻ master, landlord, god, idol ʼ, ṭhākurāin, ṭhā̆kurānī f. ʻ mistress, goddess ʼ; G. ṭhākor, ˚kar m. ʻ member of a clan of Rajputs ʼ, ṭhakrāṇī f. ʻ his wife ʼ, ṭhākor ʻ god, idol ʼ; M. ṭhākur m. ʻ jungle tribe in North Konkan, family priest, god, idol ʼ; Si. mald. "tacourou"ʻ title added to names of noblemen ʼ (HJ 915) prob. ← Ind.Addenda: ṭhakkura -- : Garh. ṭhākur ʻ master ʼ; A. ṭhākur also ʻ idol ʼ (CDIAL 5488) The vāhana of Kubera is a mongoose. This hieroglyph signifies Hieroglyph: magguśa 'mongoose' rebus: maṅginī 'ship'; mañci a large sort of boat, single-masted Pattimar in coasting trade, holding 10-40 tons. He is shown holding a lotus stalk and carries a purse of mongoose skin, signifying him as a seafaring merchant creating the wealth and treasures of a nation.
Hieroglyph: maggūśa m. ʻ mongoose ʼ Bhoj., madguśa -- m. Hem. [← Drav. DED 4014]Pk. maṁgū˘sa -- , muggasa -- , muggusu -- , maṁkusa -- m. ʻ mongoose ʼ, H. mãgūs, mũgūs m., . mãgūs, mũgas, mũgūs m.(CDIAL 9702) Ta. mūṅkā mongoose, Viverra ichneumon. Ka. muṅgi, muṅgisi, muṅguli, muṅgili, muṅgali, muṅguri. Tu. muṅgili, muṅguli, muṅgilè. Te. muṅgi, muṅgisa. Kol. muŋgus. Nk. muŋśak. Nk. (Ch.) muŋgus. Ga. (S.2) muŋgi pōtu. Go. (Tr.) mungus, (Y.) muŋgus, (S.) muŋsi, (A.) mugus (Voc. 2870); (ASu.) muggūs. Konḍa muŋgi, muŋgi elka. Kuwi (P.) muŋgi orli. / Cf. Skt. (Hem. Uṇ.) madguśa-, (Bhoj. Uṇ.) magguśa-, Pkt. maṃgusa-, muggasa-, muggusu-, H. mũgūs, mãgūs, Mar. mũgūs, mũgas, Sgh. mugaṭi; Turner, CDIAL, no. 9702. (DEDR 4900) Rebus:maṅga m.n. ʻ head of a boat, mast or side of a ship ʼ lex. (maṅginī -- f. ʻ ship ʼ HPariś.). [Cf. *majjhika -- ?]H. mãg m. ʻ head of a boat ʼ, mãgrā m. ʻ ridgepole ʼ. (CDIAL 9705) Ta. mañci cargo boat with a raised platform; vañci canoe. Ma. mañci a large sort of boat, single-masted Pattimar in coasting trade, holding 10-40 tons; vañci a large boat. Ka. mañji a large boat with one mast used in coasting trade; (Bark.) maccïve a kind of boat. Tu. mañji a long boat, a single-masted country vessel. / Possibly < IA; Turner, CDIAL, no. 9715, mañca- stage, platform.(DEDR 4638)
Griffith RV. VIII.21.18 Citra is King, and only kinglings are the rest who dwell beside Sarasvati.
He, like Parjanya with his rain, hath spread himself with thousand, yea, with myriad gifts.
Wilson: 8.021.18Verily the Ra_ja_ Citra, giving his thousands and tens of thousands, has overspread (with his bounty) those other petty princes, who rules along the Sarasvati_, as Parjanya (overspeads the earth) with rain.
Varuna on Khajuraho temples
Holds lotus stalk, noose, stands on makara. Makara is a composite animal composed of hieroglyphs: crocodile, elephant trunk, feline paws, fish-fins;the Meluhha rebus readings are: (dh)mākara 'composite animal' rebus: dhmākara 'bellows-blower, blacksmith'; kara 'crocodile' rebus: khar 'blacksmith'; karibha, ibha 'elephant' rebus: karba, ib 'iron'; panja 'feline paws' rebus: panja 'kiln, furnace'; aya 'fish' rebus: aya 'iron' ayas 'alloy metal' aya khambhaṛā 'fih-fin' rebus: aya kammaṭa 'iron mint, coiner, coinage'.
Kubera on Khajuraho temples
Holds lotus stalk, next to mongoose
Kubera, hholding mace, lotus stalk, and a mongoose skin purse, with unidentified animal by his side, Jagadambi Temple
Seated Kubera, with cup, mongoose purse, and lotus stalks, with pots by his side, Kandariya Mahadev Temple
Who's this anthropomorph with a bull's head on Khajuraho temples?
One of the Ashta Vasus, holding two lotus stalks, Javari temple
One of the Ashta Vasus, holding trishul, lotus stalk and Kamandalu, with fire by his side, Chitragupta Temple
One of the Ashta Vasus, holding lotus stalk and scroll, Chitragupta Temple
चित्र--गुप्त m.N. of one of यम's attendants (recorder of every man's good and evil deeds) महाभारत, xiii, स्कन्द-पुराण, नारदीय-पुराण, वराह-पुराण,बादरायण 's ब्रह्म-सूत्र iii , 1 , 15, Sāyaṇa, कथासरित्सागर lxxii ; a secretary of a man of rank (kind of mixed caste) (Monier-Williams) citra चित्र a. [चित्र्-भावे अच्; चि-ष्ट्रन् वा Uṇ.4.163] 1 Bright, clear. -2 Variegated, spotted, diversified. -3 amusing, interesting, agreeable; Māl.1.4. -4 Various, different, manifold; Pt.1.136; Ms.9.248; Y.1.288. -5 Surprising, wonderful, strange; किमत्र चित्रम् R.5.33; Ś.2.15. -6 Perceptible, visible. -7 Conspicuous, excellent, distinguished; न यद्वचश्चित्रपदं हरेर्यशो जगत्पवित्रं प्रगृणीत कर्हिचित् Bhāg.1.5.1. -8 Rough, agitated (as the sea, opp सम). -9 Clear, loud, perceptible (as a sound).-गुप्तः one of the beings in Yama's world recording the vices and virtues of mankind; नामान्येषां लिखामि ध्रुवमहम- धुना चित्रगुप्तः प्रमार्ष्टु Mu.1.2. (Apte) "Chitragupta (Sanskrit: चित्रगुप्त, 'rich in secrets' or 'hidden picture') is a Hindu god assigned with the task of keeping complete records of actions of human beings on the earth. He is god of justice. Upon their death, Chitragupta has the task of deciding heaven or the hell for the humans, depending on their actions on the earth. Chitragupta Maharaj (Chitragupta The Kshatriya king) is the patron deity of Kayasthas, a Hindu caste of India and Nepal...Lord Brahma commanded him to keep better track of everyone, and Yama declared that he could not reasonably be expected to keep track of the many people born of the eighty-four hundred thousand different life forms of planet Earth. Lord Brahma, determined to solve this problem for Yama, sat in meditation for many thousands of years. Finally he opened his eyes, and a man stood before him with a pen and paper. As Chitragupta was born of Brahma's body or kaya in Sanskrit, Brahma declared that his children would forever be known as Kayasthas. Chitragupta is sometimes also referred to as the first man to use letters, and is hailed that way in the GaruḍaPurāṇa. He is known as being incredibly meticulous, and with his pen and paper he tracks every action of every sentient life form, building up a record of them over the course of their life so that when they die the fate of their soul can be easily determined. These perfect and complete documents are referred to in mystical traditions as the Akashic records, and as they contain the actions of each person from birth to death, they can be said to contain every action taken in the universe.,,Items associated with Chitragupta in his puja include the paper and pen, ink, honey, betel nut, matches, mustard, ginger, jaggery, sugar, sandalwood, and frankincense. A puja is often performed to Chitragupta in reverence of the four virtues he is seen to embody: justice, peace, literacy, and knowledge. Part of the Chitragupta puja also includes writing down how much money you make in your household, and how much you need to make to survive in the following year, while making offerings of turmeric, flowers, and vermilion...Yama Samhita...The god Brahma (creator) said: "Because you are sprung from my body (kaya), therefore you shall be called Kayastha and as you existed in my body unseen I give you the name of Chitragupta." He then assumed charge of Yamapuri...progenitors of the twelve subdivisions of the Chitraguptavansi Kayasthas, namely Saxena, Mathur, Gaur, Nigam, Ashthana, Kulshrestha, Suryadwaja, Bhatnagar, Ambastha, Shrivastava, Karna and Vaalmik..Chitragupta is hailed as the first man to give the script....Chitragupta namastubhyam vedākṣaradātre (Obeisance to Chitragupta, the giver of letters)...The birthday of Chitragupta is celebrated on Yama Dwitiya and Chitraguptajayanti Puja is performed on this day..A more than 300-year-old very famous temple of Shri Chitra Gupta is located in the centre of city in Alwar, Alwar, Rajasthan where an annual fair is held for darshan and worship of chitraguptaji, between Dhantriyodashi to Yam Dwitia in the Hindu month of Kartic(October–November).to celebrate the chitragupta jayanti, on Yama Dwitiya." Khajuraho India, Chitragupta Temple. Based on the epigraphic evidence, the construction of the temple can be dated to 1020-1025 CE. It was probably consecrated on 23 February 1023 CE, on the occasion of Shivaratri. Chitragupta or Bharatji"s Temple "This is the only local temple dedicated to Surya and is situated about 91 m to the north of the Jagadambi temple and 183 m south-east of an ancient (Chandella) three storied stepped tank, known as the Chopra. In respect of plan, design, dimensions and decorative scheme this temple closely resembles the Jagadambi and consists of a sanctum without ambulatory, vestibule, maha-mandapa with lateral transepts and entrance-porch, the last being completely restored above the original plinth. The octagonal ceiling of its maha-mandapa marks an elaboration over the square plan and thus appears to be relatively more ornate and developed than Jagadambi and may consequently be slightly later in date. The main image enshrined in the sanctum represents an impressive sculpture of standing Surya driving in a chariot of seven horses. Three similar but smaller figures of Surya are depicted on the lintel of the ornate doorway. The temple walls are also carved with some of the finest figures of sura-sundaris, erotic couples and gods including an eleven-headed Vishnu. The sculptures on this temple. as on the Jagadambi, approximate those of the Visvanatha in style. The same affinity is visible with regard to the architectural and decorative motifs. The Jagdambi and the Chitragupta temples are, therefore, stylistically placed between the Visvanatha and the Kandariya and are assignable to circa 1000-25." Brahma and his consort. Surasundari. Chitragupta Temple, Khajuraho. There is also a sculpture of Shiva's attendant Nandi, who is shown with a human body and a bull's head. A clear indicator of an anthropomorph: dangra 'bull' rebus: dhangar 'blacksmith'. http://asibhopal.nic.in/monument/chhatarpur_khajuraho_chitragupta.html# Chitragupta temple, Kanchipuram
Shrine for Chitragupta
The Utsava idols of Lord Chitragupta, who is believed to grace the devotee with prosperity, and his Consort...
THE TEMPLE town of Kanchipuram, in Tamil Nadu, which has 108 Siva temples and 18 famous Divyadesa Vaishnava temples, has also been blessed with a unique and separate temple for Chitragupta, the chief minister and chief accountant of Lord Yama (the God of Death), on Nellukara Street, in the heart of the town. There is no other separate shrine for Chitragupta.
Chitragupta, created by Lord Brahma through the Sun God, is the younger brother of Yama. He keeps track of all the good and bad deeds of human beings and sends them to `heaven' or `hell' after death.
According to archaeologists, the Chitragupta temple was built in Kanchipuram during the Chola period (Ninth Century) and is being maintained by a particular community of Kanchipuram from time immemorial.
The presiding deity (moolavar) is seen in a sitting posture holding the ezhuthaani (pen) in his right hand and a palm leaf in left symbolising his nature of work. The utsava panchaloka idol of Chitragupta is seen with His consort Karnikambal. It is believed that Lord Chitragupta is the Athi Devathai for Kethu, one of the Navagrahas, and those who worship Chitragupta at this temple, would be bestowed with prosperity. Also the evil effects of Kethu during its transit period would be mitigated. However, according to astrologers, Lord Vinayaka is the Prathi Devathaifor Kethu and would also mitigate the evil effects of Kethu.
S. Kumaraswamy, the trustee of Sri Chitragupta Swamy Temple, says, that a large number of devotees come to the temple and perform abishekams and pujas, especially during Pournami (full moon) every month. Chitra Pournami is celebrated as a grand festival in the temple every year. This year it falls on April 16.
Pics. by A. Muralitharan
Chitragupta Temple... one of its kind
He says that a number of devotees had told him that Lord Chitragupta had fulfilled their prayers.He says that two small panchaloka idols of Chitragupta with His Consort Karnikambal were found while the ground around the temple was dug for carrying out repairs, in February 1911. But these idols could not be used for worship because of minor damages. However, they are being kept along with the presiding deity. The last kumbabhishekam of the temple was performed on July 14, 1918. Later, some repair works were carried out in August 1944. Several deities including Navagrahas, Durga and Vinayakar were installed in the temple.
According to the Puranas, Lord Yama requested Lord Siva to get Him an intelligent chief minister and chief accountant for looking after the good and bad deeds committed by the human beings.
Lord Siva in turn told Brahma, and Chitragupta was born to the Sun God and Neeladevi.
K. SUBRAMANIAN
https://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/fr/2003/04/18/stories/2003041801260800.htm Yama's Court and Hell. The Blue figure is Yama with Yami and Chitragupta, 17th-century painting A large central panel portrays Yamathe god of death (often referred to as Dharma) seated on a throne; to the left stands a demon. To the right of Yama sits Chitragupta, assigned with keeping detailed records of every human being and upon their death deciding how they are to be reincarnated, depending on their previous actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chitragupta
The Power of 8 - The Ashta Dikpalas and Ashta Vasus at Khajuraho -- Anu Shankar
The four cardinal directions form the axis on which a temple is built, and are thus the basis of temple architecture. Leading from them are the eight directions, which are believed to be guarded by the eight guardians, or Ashta Dikpalas. In the temples of Khajuraho, great care has been taken by the sculptors to carve the Ashta Dikpalas on the walls, both inside and outside. They not only guard the temple, but also look over us as we circumambulate the shrine, protecting us by their presence. They are augmented by the Ashta Vasus, celestial beings which represent natural phenomena. Together, they enhance the idea of the temple as cosmos, enfolding within it, all the aspects of nature, both, on earth, as well in space.
The Ashta Dikpalasare seen on both, the inner and outer walls of the temples at Khajuraho. They are shown in various niches, seated as well as standing. Let me take you on a visual tour of the Dikpalas at Khajuraho…..
Indra, the king of the gods, is the guardian of the East. Indra is among the most important deties in the Vedas, and he is associated with lightning, thunder and rain. He is usually shown holding his Vajra (thunderbolt) and with his elephant, Airavata. The East is considered an auspicious direction, due to the rising of the sun. Besides, Indra is the god of rain, and rain being crucial to life, he is shown on the eastern wall of temples.
Indra, holding a Vajra in his right hand, with elephant by his side. Kandariya Mahadev Temple
Indra, identified by the placement, and elephant by his side, Chitragupta Temple
Agni, the god of Fire, is the guardian of the South-East. Agni is one of the major gods in the Vedas, and, as fire, is the one who accepts offerings on behalf of the gods. As one of the oldest gods, he is depicted with a moustache and/or a beard, and is shown as being fat, since he consumes everything. His vehicle, the ram, is also usually shown next to him.
Agni, pot bellied, with beard and mustache, holding a lamp and parchment, with a Ram by his side. Kandariya Mahadev Temple
Yama, the god of death, is the guardian of the South. He is shown riding a buffalo, or with the buffalo next to him, and in his hands, he carries a noose and a staff or danda. Sometimes, he also has a bird in his hand or on his shoulder. It could either be a pigeon or a crow, both of which are said to be his messengers.
Yama, holding staff, damru, and bird, with a buffaloby his side, Kandariya Mahadev Temple
Yama, with skull cup and buffalo by his feet, Duladeo Temple. The hair fanning out is typical of sculptures in this temple.
Nritti is the guardian of the South-West. The name Nritti comes from “na-rti” or the absence of rules. Thus, Nritti depicts the one who is wild, who does not follow any rules. According to Wikipedia, Nritti is a goddess, while Nritta is one of the forms of Rudra or Shiva. At Khajuraho, however, Nritti is depicted as a nude male, holding a snake and a sword, with a man lying by his side, or under him. It thus appears that he is considered here a form of Shiva.
Nritti, nude, holding sword and shield, with a human figure at his feet (head broken), Jagadambi Temple
Varuna is the god of water, and the guardian of the West. He is shown with his vahana, the Makara(crocodile), and holding a lotus stalk, and a noose.
Varuna, holding a noose and lotus stalk in two of his hands, standing on his mount, the Makara or crocodile, Javari Temple
Vayu is the god of wind, and the guardian of the North-West. His vahana or vehicle is the antelope, and he is shown holding a cloth in two of his arms, flying behind him, depicting air.
Vayu, with the antelope at his feet, looking up, Kandariya Mahadev Temple
Kubera, the god of wealth, is the guardian of the North. Kubera is a Yaksha, closely associated with the earth, and all her treasures. He is usually depicted as short and fat, holding a money purse and club/mace in his hand. Early sculptures show him with a mongoose skin purse, or a mongoose over his shoulder, and sometimes with an elephant. There are also pots shown by his side.
Kubera, hholding mace, lotus stalk, and a mongoose skin purse, with unidentified animal by his side, Jagadambi Temple
Kubera, with mongoose skin purse over his shoulder, and pots near his feet, Chaturbhuja Temple
Seated Kubera, with cup, mongoose purse, and lotus stalks, with pots by his side, Kandariya Mahadev Temple
Isana is the guardian of the North-East. He is a form of Shiva, considered to be one of his five aspects. He is depicted in a manner similar to Shiva, except that he has at least one hand in varadamudra, or benevolent pose.
Isana, Lakshmana Temple
The Ashta Dikpalas or guardians of the eight directions, are placed on the walls corresponding to their directions. Thus, Indra is seen on the Eastern wall of the temple, Agni on the South East wall, or the South East corner, and so on, thus facing the direction they represent. This is true not just of Khajuraho, but of many ancient temples. If you are visiting any, try to get an idea of the direction, and then identify the sculptures. Believe me, it helps!
Another group of eight figuresseen on the walls of the temples at Khajuraho are the Ashta Vasus.
One of the Ashta Vasus, holding lotus stalk and scroll, Chitragupta Temple
The Ashta Vasus are a set of eight celestial beings, representing different aspects of nature, or natural phenomena. They are: Dhara (earth), Anala (fire), Anila (wind), Aha (space), Pratyusha (twilight), Prabhasa(dawn), Soma (moon) and Dhruva (pole-star).
One of the Ashta Vasus, holding trishul, lotus stalk and Kamandalu, with fire by his side, Chitragupta Temple
In the Mahabharata, the Ashta Vasus are celestial beings, who, prompted by one of their wives, steal the cow of sage Vashishta. The sage, in his anger, curses them to be born as humans, and experience the struggles of a human life. Aghast at the result of their prank, they apologise, and the sage modifies his curse. The 8 brothers persuade Ganga to give birth to them, and throw them into the river as soon as they are born, thus relieving them from the curse, as per the sage’s words. However, the brother primarily responsible for the theft has no choice but to bear the curse in its entirety, for not just himself, but all his brothers. He is born to Ganga, but lives on, first named Devavrata, and later called Bhishma. He lives through generations of his clan, forced to watch sons and grandsons die, before he himself can leave his human body.
However, there is another caveat to the curse – the 8 brothers are always shown with bovine faces (face of a cow) as a reminder of their crime.
Top: One of the Ashta Vasus; Bottom: Agni Duladeo Temple
Top: One of the Ashta Vasus; Bottom: Yama Vamana Temple
One of the Ashta Vasus, Javari Temple
One of the Ashta Vasus, holding two lotus stalks, Javari Temple
Top: One of the Ashta Vasus, Bottom: Kubera, Vamana Temple
Top: One of the Ashta Vasus; Bottom: Nritti, notice the human he is standing on.. Javari Temple
While the story of the Ashta Vasus is something I was familiar with, the story of their bovine faces was new to me. It was only thanks to Dr. Kirit Mankodi, whom I met at Jnananpravaha Mumbai, and who very helpfully clarified my doubts, that I learnt the identity of the bull-faced figures seen all over the temples. He also helped with the identification of Kubera, whom I had never seen with a mongoose before, as well as a number of other figures I have yet to write about.
This video is uploaded by Department of Antiquities & Archaeology, Government of Sindh for spreading awareness of our activities. For further please visit our site: http://antiquities.sindhculture.gov.pk/
This video is uploaded by Department of Antiquities & Archaeology, Government of Sindh for spreading awareness of our activities. For further please visit ou...
https://tinyurl.com/vbddxz8 Executive Summary The conclusion is that the pan-Bharatiya phenomenon of unity of artificers' crafts is evidenced in the unity of all Bharatiya languages in a cultural lexis of wealth-related words & expressions. This exemplifies Sarasvati-Sindhu Civilization as Meluhha, Bharatiya, Indian sprachbund, 'speech union' or linguistic area. This essential cultural and semantic unity from ca. 4th millennium BCE and in the Indus Script tradition of documenting wealth-creation for the Nation, is demonstrated in this monograph. The artificers are celebrated and venerated. Varāha Avatāra is a metaphor (and also an Indus Script hieroglyph) of breath-taking splendour adoring the contributions made by the artificers of wood and iron to create the wealth of the nation in a shared commonwealth governed by śreṇi-dharma, the social ethic and social responsibility of a guild, as a key factor of economic activities. This monograph is presented in the following sections: Section 1. तक्षा in Rgveda is an adoration of the artisan, artificer in wood and iron. He is signified by the synonym, hieroglyph: baḍhi 'boar' Section 2. Rgveda refers to तक्षन् takṣan, an artisan expert in working in wood and metal
Section 3. Decipherment of Copper Anthropomorph of Indus Script tradition
Section 4. Glory of Kutch, Sarasvati-Sindhu Civilization, from ca. 7th m. BCE Kutch artisans triggered the Tin-Bronze Revolution; breath-taking splendour of Varāha Avatāra
Section 5. United languages of Bharat. Decipherment of Nagwada seal impression and stamp seal: Indus Script metalwork, smelter repertoire; migrations from Gujarat to South India
Section 1. तक्षा in Rgveda is an adoration of the artisan, artificer in wood and iron.
तक्षन् (Ved. acc.°क्षणम् , class. °क्षणम्पाणिनि6-4 , 9 काशिका-वृत्ति) a wood-cutter , carpenter,RV. ix , 112 , 1AV. x , 6 , 3वाजसनेयि-संहिता The significance of baḍhi 'boar' rebus: baḍhi 'worker in wood and iron' is signified in the copper anthropomorph used as a professional calling card of the artificers of the Sarasvati-Sindhu Civilization. See Section 3. Decipherment of Copper Anthropomorph of Indus Script tradition
The use of the word तक्षा used in RV 9.112.1 is translated as 'carpenter' by Wilson and as 'wright' by Griffith. Apte provides the following meanings of expressions which include तक्ष् takṣ. Synonyms of the word are: रथकारःa coachbuilder, carpenter, wheel-wright; तक्षन् as a wheelwright is a worker in wood and iron. The synonym for this professional artificer are clearly detailed in the following Santali etyma: Hieroglyphs:
Rebus renderings in Meluhha:
taṣṭṛ तष्टृ m.1 A carpenter in general; रथं न तष्टेव तत्सिनाय Rv.1.61.4. -2 The architect of gods (विश्वकर्मन्) -3 One of the 12 Ādityas; स्थपति sthapati स्थपति a. [स्था-क तस्य पतिः] Chief, principal. -तिः 1 A king, sovereign; 'स्थपतिरधिपतौ तक्ष्णि बृहस्पतिसचिवयोः'इति वैजयन्ती; जगत्त्रयैकस्थपतिस्त्वमुच्चकैः Śi.1.34. -2 An architect; स्थपतिर्बुद्धिसंपन्नो वास्तुविद्याविशारदः Mb.1.51.15. -3 A wheel-wright, master-carpenter. -4 A charioteer. -5 One who offers a sacrifice to Bṛihaspati. -6 An attendant on the women's apartments. -7 N. of Kubera. स्थपत्यः sthapatyḥ स्थपत्यः A chamberlain; स्थपत्यशुद्धान्तजनैः परीता Jānakīharaṇa.7.1. (Apte)
तक्ष् takṣ a. (At the end of comp.) Paring, cutting &c.; also तक्ष; Bṛi. S.87.2,24; also तक्षक q. v.; R.15.89. तक्षकः takṣakḥ [तक्ष् ण्वुल्] 1 A carpenter, wood-cutter (whether by caste or profession). -2 The chief actor in the prelude of a drama (i. e. the सूत्रधार). -3 N. of the architect of the gods. -4 N. of one of the principal Nāgas or serpents of the Pātāla, son of Kaśyapa and Kadru (saved at the intercession of the sage Āstika from being burnt down in the serpent-sacrifice performed by king Janamejaya, in which many others of his race were burnt down to ashes). तक्षणम् takṣaṇam (तक्ष् भावे-ल्युट्] Paring, cutting; दारवाणां च तक्षणम् Ms.5.115; Y.1 185. -णी A carpenter's adze. तक्षन् takṣan m. [तक्ष्-कनिन्] 1 A carpenter, wood-cutter (whether by caste or profession); तक्षा रिष्टं रुतं भिषग् Rv.9.112.1; तक्षाणः पलगण्डाश्च ... Śiva. B.31.18; अताक्षा तक्षा K. P. 'one not a तक्षन् by caste is called तक्षन् when he acts like or follows the profession of a तक्षन् (carpenter); Śi.12.25. -2 N. of the architect of the gods.
The word baḍhi 'artificer in wood and iron' (Santali) finds pronunciation variants in a number of Indian languages:
In Kannada, the lexical entry is emphatic, baḍiga = तक्ष
Oriya ତକ୍ଷ (ଧାତୁ)— Taksha (root) ସଂ— କାଠ ଚାଞ୍ଛିବା— To scrape wood.ତକ୍ଷ— Taksha ସଂ. ବି. ପୁଂ— 1। (ନାମ) ରାଜାଭରତଙ୍କ ପୁତ୍ର— 1. The son of king Bharat, king of Gāndhāra (morden kabul); his captial was at Taxillā (morden Rawalpiṇḍi). ତକ୍ଷ ପୁଷ୍କଳ ବେନି ଭାଳ ଭାରତ ପତ୍ନୀ ଗର୍ଭେ ହୋଇ। ଜଗନ୍ନାଥ. ଭାଗବତ।[ଦ୍ର—ଏ ଗନ୍ଧାରର ରାଜା ଥିଲେ ଏବଂ ଏହାଙ୍କ ରାଜଧାନୀ ତକ୍ଷଶିଳା (ଆଧ୍ବନିକ ରାଓଲପିଣ୍ଡି) ଥିଲା।]2। କାଠ ଚାଞ୍ଛିବା—2. Act of scraping wood.
ତକ୍ଷକ— Takshaka ସଂ. ବି. (ତକ୍ଷ୍ ଧାତୁ=କାଠ ଚାଞ୍ଛିବା+କର୍ତ୍ତୃ. ଅକ)— 1। ସୁତ୍ରଧର; ବଢ଼େଇ—1. Carpenter. 2। ବିଶ୍ବକର୍ମା—2. Biswakarmā the mythical devine architect. 3। ନାଟକର ସୁତ୍ରଧାର; ନାଟ୍ଯାଧ୍ଯକ୍ଷ— 3. Stage-manager. 4। ପାତାଳର ଅଷ୍ଟନାଗ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ଏକ ନାଗ— 4. One of the eight mythical serpents of the nether world. [ଦ୍ର— ଏ କଶ୍ଯପଙ୍କ ଔରସରେ କଦ୍ରୁ ଗର୍ଭରୁ ଜାତ ଓ ସର୍ପରାଜ ବାସୁକିଙ୍କ ଭ୍ରାତା। ଖାଣ୍ଡବ ବନରେ ଏହାଙ୍କର ବାସ ଥିଲା। ଏ ପରୀକ୍ଷିତ ମହାରାଜାଙ୍କୁ ବ୍ରହ୍ମଶାପ ଅନୁସାରେ ଦଂଶନ କରିବାରୁ ପରୀକ୍ଷିତ ମୃତ ହେଲେ ଓ ତାଙ୍କ ପୁତ୍ର ଜନମେଜଯ ସପଯଜ୍ଞ କରି ସର୍ପକୁଳ ନିର୍ମୃଳ କରିବାକୁ ଉଦ୍ଯତ ହେବାରୁ ତକ୍ଷକ ଆସ୍ତିକ ମୁନିଙ୍କ ଚେଷ୍ଟାରେ ଉକ୍ତ ଯଜ୍ଞାଗ୍ନିରେ ନ ପଡ଼ି ରକ୍ଷା ପାଇଥିଲେ।]5। ଏଣ୍ଡୁଅ—5. Chameleon 6। ଏଣ୍ଡୁଅ ପରି ଏକପ୍ରକାର ପକ୍ଷୟୁକ୍ତ ଜୀବ— 6. The flying lizard; dragon; Draco Volans. [ଦ୍ର—ଏମାନେ ଉଡ଼ି ବୁଲନ୍ତି ଓ ରାତିରେ ବିକଟ ଚିତ୍କାର କରନ୍ତି। ସେହି ଚିତ୍କାରର ଧ୍ବନି 'ତକ୍ଷକ'ପରି ଶୁଭେ। ଏମାନେ ପରସ୍ପର କାମୁଡ଼ାକାମୁଡ଼ି ହୁଅନ୍ତି।]7। ଦେହ ମଧ୍ଯସ୍ଥ ଦଶ ବାଯୁ ମଧ୍ୟରୁ ଏକ; ନାଗ ବାଯୂ— 7. One of the ten airs inside the human body. [ଦ୍ର—ଶରୀର ମଧ୍ଯସ୍ଥ ଦଶ ବାଯୁ—ପ୍ରାଣ, ଅପାନ,ବ୍ଯାନ, ଉଦାନ, ସମାନ, ତକ୍ଷକ, ଧନଞ୍ଜଯ, ପୌଣ୍ଡ୍ରକ, ଦେବଦତ୍ତ ଓ ଶଙ୍ଖ।]8। ଭାଗବତୋକ୍ତ ପ୍ରସେନଜିତ୍ଙ୍କ ପୁତ୍ର— 8. Name of the son of King Prasenajit. 9। ସୂଚିକା ପିତା ଓ ବ୍ରାହ୍ମଣୀ ମାତାଙ୍କଠାରୁ ଉତ୍ପନ୍ନ ବର୍ଣ୍ଣ ସଙ୍କର ଜାତିବିଶେଷ (ହି. ଶବ୍ଦସାଗର)— 9. Name of a class of half-caste Hindus. ତକ୍ଷଣ— Takshaṇa ସଂ. ବି. (ତକ୍ଷ ଧାତୁ=କାଠ ତାଞ୍ଛିବା+ଭାବ. ଅନ)— 1। ବଢ଼େଇ କାମ—1. Carpentry. 2। ଅସ୍ତ୍ରଦ୍ବାରା କାଠ ଚାଞ୍ଛିବା; ରନ୍ଦା ମାରିବା— 2. Planing of wood; scraping of wood work. 3। ରନ୍ଦା; ରଞ୍ଜା—3. Carpenter's plane 4। ବଢ଼େଇ (ହି. ଶବ୍ଦସାଗର)—4. Carpenter. 5। ପଥର କାଠ ଆଦି ଖୋଳି ମୂର୍ତ୍ତି ଆଦି ଗଢ଼ିବା କର୍ମ(ହି. ଶବ୍ଦସାଗର)—5. Carving of wood & stone.[synonym(s): তথুনি, তথানিफौरन]ଦେ. କ୍ରି. ବିଣ (ସଂ. ତତ୍କ୍ଷଣ)— ଅତି ଚଞ୍ଚଳ; ତତ୍କ୍ଷଣାତ୍; ଶୀଘ୍ର— At once; very soon; immediately. ହୃଦୟେ ବସଇ ତକ୍ଷଣ, ଅନାଦି ପ୍ରଭୁ ନାରାଯଣ। ଜଗନ୍ନାଥ. ଭାଗବତ।
takshakuḍu తక్షకుడు takshakuḍu. [Skt.] n. The name of mythological serpent ఒక సర్పరాజు. The name of a race of men called Takshakas. A carpenter వడ్లవాడు.
బత్తిbatti. [for. Skt. భక్తి.] n. Faith. బత్తిగల faithful. "అంగనయెంతటి పుణ్యమూర్తివో, బత్తిజనింపనాదుచెర బాపితి." S. iii. 63. See on భక్తి. బత్తుడుbattuḍu. n. A worshipper. భక్తుడు. The caste title of all the five castes of artificers as వడ్లబత్తుడు a carpenter. కడుపుబత్తుడు one who makes a god of his belly. L. xvi. 230.
బాడిస or బాడిసెbāḍisa. [Tel.] n. A carpenter's adze.
వడ్రంగి, వడ్లంగి, వడ్లవాడు or వడ్లబత్తుడుvaḍrangi. [Tel.] n. A carpenter. వడ్రంగము, వడ్లపని, వడ్రము or వడ్లంగితనముvaḍrangamu. n. The trade of a carpenter. వడ్లవానివృత్తి. వడ్రంగిపని. వడ్రంగిపిట్ట or వడ్లంగిపిట్టvaḍrangi-piṭṭa. n. A woodpecker. దార్వాఘాటము. వడ్లకంకణముvaḍla-kankaṇamu. n. A curlew. ఉల్లంకులలో భేదము. వడ్లత or వడ్లదిvaḍlata. n. A woman of the carpenter caste.
தச்சத்திtaccatti , n. See தச்சிச்சி. (நன். 420, சங்கரந.)
தச்சநூல்tacca-nūl , n. < தச்சன் +. Treatise on carpentry; தச்சத்தொழிலைப்பற்றிய சாஸ்திரம்.
தச்சமுழம்tacca-muḻam , n. < தச்சன் +. See தச்சக்கோல்.
தச்சவாடிtacca-vāṭi , n. < id. + vāṭī. Carpenter's yard; தச்சர்வேலைசெய்யும் இடம். (C. E. M.)
தச்சவேலைtacca-vēlai , n. < id. +. Carpentry; தச்சருக்குரிய தொழில்.
தச்சன்taccaṉ , n. < takṣa. 1. Carpenter; மரத்தில் வேலை செய்பவன். மரங்கொஃ றச்சரும் (மணி. 28, 37). 2. Person of carpenter caste; தச்சுவேலைசெய்யும் சாதியான். 3. The 14th nakṣatra, as pertaining to Višvakarma; [விசுவ கர்மாவுக் குரியது] சித்திரை நாள். (பிங்.)
தச்சிச்சிtaccicci , n. Fem. of தச்சன். Woman of Taccaṉ caste; தச்சச்சாதிப்பெண். (நன். 140, மயிலை.)
தச்சுtaccu , n. < takṣa. 1. Carpenter's work; தச்சன்றொழில். தச்சு விடுத்தலும் (திருவாச. 14, 3). 2. Day's work of a carpenter; தச்சனது ஒருநால் வேலையளவு.
தச்சுவாடிtaccu-vāṭi , n. < தச்சு +. 1. See தச்சவாடி. 2. Stand for hackney carriages; வாடகைவண்டிகள் நிற்கும் இடம். Loc. 3. Fuel-depot; விறகுக்கடை. Loc.
5618takṣa in cmpd. ʻ cutting ʼ, m. ʻ carpenter ʼ VarBr̥S., vṛkṣa -- takṣaka -- m. ʻ tree -- feller ʼ R. [√takṣ] Pa. tacchaka -- m. ʻ carpenter ʼ, taccha -- sūkara -- m. ʻ boar ʼ; Pk. takkha -- , ˚aya -- m. ʻ carpenter, artisan ʼ; Bshk. sum -- tac̣h ʻ hoe ʼ (< ʻ *earth -- scratcher ʼ), tec̣h ʻ adze ʼ (< *takṣī -- ?); Sh. tac̣i f. ʻ adze ʼ; -- Phal. tērc̣hi ʻ adze ʼ (with "intrusive" r).
5619takṣaṇa n. ʻ cutting, paring ʼ KātyŚr. [√takṣ] Pa. tacchanī -- f. ʻ hatchet ʼ; Pk. tacchaṇa -- n., ˚ṇā -- f. ʻ act of cutting or scraping ʼ; Kal. tēčin ʻ chip ʼ (< *takṣaṇī -- ?); K. tȧchyunu (dat. tȧchinis) m. ʻ wood -- shavings ʼ; Ku. gng. taċhaṇ ʻ cutting (of wood) ʼ; M. tāsṇī f. ʻ act of chipping &c., adze ʼ. Addenda: takṣaṇa -- : Pk. tacchaṇa -- n. ʻ cutting ʼ; Kmd.barg. taċə̃ři ʻ chips (on roof) ʼ GM 22.6.71.
5620tákṣati (3 pl. tákṣati RV.) ʻ forms by cutting, chisels ʼ MBh. [√takṣ] Pa. tacchati ʻ builds ʼ, tacchēti ʻ does woodwork, chips ʼ; Pk. takkhaï, tacchaï, cacchaï, caṁchaï ʻ cuts, scrapes, peels ʼ; Gy. pers. tetchkani ʻ knife ʼ, wel. tax -- ʻ to paint ʼ (?); Dm. taċ -- ʻ to cut ʼ (ċ < IE. k̂s NTS xii 128), Kal. tã̄č -- ; Kho. točhik ʻ to cut with an axe ʼ; Phal. tac̣<-> ʻ to cut, chop, whittle ʼ; Sh. (Lor.) thačoiki ʻ to fashion (wood) ʼ; K. tachun ʻ to shave, pare, scratch ʼ, S. tachaṇu; L. tachaṇ ʻ to scrape ʼ, (Ju.) ʻ to rough hew ʼ, P. tacchṇā, ludh. tacchanā ʻ to hew ʼ; Ku. tāchṇo ʻ to square out ʼ; N. tāchnu ʻ to scrape, peel, chip off ʼ (whence tachuwā ʻ chopped square ʼ, tachārnu ʻ to lop, chop ʼ); B. cã̄chā ʻ to scrape ʼ; Or. tã̄chibā, cã̄chibā, chã̄cibā ʻ to scrape off, clip, peel ʼ; Bhoj. cã̄chal ʻ to smoothe with an adze ʼ; H. cã̄chnā ʻ to scrape up ʼ; G. tāchvũ ʻ to scrape, carve, peel ʼ, M. tāsṇẽ; Si. sahinavā, ha˚ ʻ to cut with an adze ʼ. <-> Kho. troc̣ik ʻ to hew ʼ with "intrusive" r. Addenda: tákṣati: Kmd. taċ -- ʻ to cut, pare, clip ʼ GM 22.6.71; A. cã̄ciba (phonet. sãsibɔ) ʻ to scrape ʼ AFD 216, 217, ʻ to smoothe with an adze ʼ 331. TAÑC: †takmán -- .
5621tákṣan (acc. tákṣaṇam RV., takṣāṇam Pāṇ.) m. ʻ carpenter ʼ. [√takṣ] Pk. takkhāṇa -- m., Paš. ar. tac̣an -- kṓr, weg. taṣāˊn, Kal. kaṭ -- tačon, Kho. (Lor.) tačon, Sh. &oarcacute; m., kaṭ -- th˚, K. chān m., chöñü f., P. takhāṇ m., ˚ṇī f., H. takhān m.; Si. sasa ʻ carpenter, wheelwright ʼ < nom. tákṣā. -- With "intrusive" r: Kho. (Lor.) tračon ʻ carpenter ʼ, P. tarkhāṇ m. (→ H. tarkhān m.), WPah. jaun. tarkhāṇ. -- With unexpl. d -- or dh -- (X dāˊru -- ?): S. ḍrakhaṇu m. ʻ carpenter ʼ; L. drakhāṇ, (Ju.) darkhāṇ m. ʻ carpenter ʼ (darkhāṇ pakkhī m. ʻ woodpecker ʼ), mult. dhrikkhāṇ m., dhrikkhaṇī f., awāṇ. dhirkhāṇ m.(CDIAL)
11372vardha1 m. ʻ a cutting ʼ W. [√vardh] S. vaḍhu m. ʻ a cut ʼ; L. vaḍḍh m. ʻ ears of corn remaining in a field after sheaves have been removed ʼ; P. vaḍḍh, ba˚ m. ʻ a cut in a piece of wood, chip, stubble of grain (wheat, maize, &c.) ʼ, vaḍḍhā, ba˚ m. ʻ cut, mark ʼ; G. vāḍh m. ʻ cut, wound, reaping a field ʼ; Si. vaḍa -- ya ʻ act of cutting off ʼ; -- K. broḍu m. ʻ septum of nose ʼ?
11373várdha2 m. ʻ giving increase or prosperity ʼ RV. [√vr̥dh] Pa. vaḍḍha -- n. ʻ wealth ʼ, vaḍḍhaka -- ʻ augmenting ʼ; Paš. wāḍ m. ʻ body ʼ IIFL iii 3, 183; S. vādho m. ʻ profit ʼ; P. vāddhā, bā˚ m. ʻ increase, profit ʼ; WPah. (Joshi) bādhā m. ʻ increase in taxes ʼ; B. bāṛ(h)ā ʻ increase ʼ, Or. baṛhā, H. bādhā m., M. vāḍh m. *gōvardha -- .
11374vardhaka in cmpd. ʻ cutting ʼ, m. ʻ carpenter ʼ R. [√vardh] Pa. cīvara -- vaḍḍhaka -- m. ʻ tailor ʼ; Kho. bardog, ˚ox ʻ axe ʼ (early → Kal. wadók before v -- > b -- in Kho.); <-> Wg. wāṭ ʻ axe ʼ, Paš.dar. wāˊṭak (ṭ?).
11375vardhaki m. ʻ carpenter ʼ MBh. [√vardh] Pa. vaḍḍhaki -- m. ʻ carpenter, building mason ʼ; Pk. vaḍḍhaï -- m. ʻ carpenter ʼ, ˚aïa -- m. ʻ shoemaker ʼ; WPah. jaun. bāḍhōī ʻ carpenter ʼ, (Joshi) bāḍhi m., N. baṛhaï, baṛahi, A. bārai, B. bāṛaï, ˚ṛui, Or. baṛhaï, ˚ṛhāi, (Gaṛjād) bāṛhoi, Bi. baṛahī, Bhoj. H. baṛhaī m., M. vāḍhāyā m., Si. vaḍu -- vā. *vārdhaka -- . Addenda: vardhaki -- : WPah.kṭg. báḍḍhi m. ʻ carpenter ʼ; kṭg. bəṛhe\i, báṛhi, kc. baṛhe ← H. beside genuine báḍḍhi Him.I 135), J. bāḍhi, Garh. baṛhai, A. also bāṛhai AFD 94; Md. vaḍīn, vaḍin pl. †*vardhakikarman -- .
1568 *vārdhaka ʻ pertaining to a carpenter ʼ. [vardhaki -- ] S. vāḍho m. ʻ carpenter ʼ, P. vāḍḍhī, bā˚ m. (< *vārdhika -- ?); Si. vaḍu ʻ pertaining to carpentry ʼ. vārdhanī -- see vardhanī -- . Addenda: *vārdhaka -- [Dial. a ~ ā < IE. o T. Burrow BSOAS xxxviii 73](CDIAL)
3562 *sūtrakara ʻ spinner ʼ [Cf. sūtrakāra -- . -- sūˊtra -- , kará -- 1] M. suterā m. ʻ spider, the thread which it spins ʼ. sūtrakāra -- m. ʻ carpenter ʼ R. [sūˊtra -- , kāra -- 1](CDIAL)
11375vardhaki -- :vāḍho m. ʻ carpenter ʼ.(CDIAL 11375)
Pashto:
تخڅtaḵẖaḏẕ, s.f. (1st) An adze, a carpenter's tool. Pl. تخڅِtaḵẖaḏẕi. See ترښز
ترکانړtarkāṟṟṉ, s.m. (5th) A carpenter. Pl. ترکانړانtarkāṟṟṉān. (Panjābī).
Kashmiri:
tŏrkaत्वर्क in tŏrka-chānत्वर्क-छान् । कौटतक्षः m. a private carpenter, a village carpenter who works on his own account, a cabinet maker (H. vii, 17, 20); cf. chān 1. -chān-bāy-छान्-बाय् । स्वतन्त्रतक्षस्त्री f. his wife. -chönil-छा॑निल् । कौटतक्षता f. the occupation of a cabinet maker. tŏrka-chöñüत्वर्क-छा॑ञू॒ । कौटतक्षस्त्री f. a cabinet maker's wife.
Apte Samskrtam:
त्वष्टिः tvaṣṭiḥ त्वष्टिः f. Carpentry; Ms.1.48.
त्वष्टृ tvaṣṭṛ त्वष्टृ m. [त्वक्ष्-तृच्] 1 A carpenter, builder, workman, त्वष्ट्रेव विहितं यन्त्रम् Mb.12.33.22. -2 Viśvakarman, the architect of the gods. [Tvaṣtṛi is the Vulcan of the Hindu mythology. He had a son named Triśiras and a daughter called संज्ञा, who was given in marriage to the sun. But she was unable to bear the severe light of her husband, and therefore Tvaṣtṛi mounted the sun upon his lathe, and carefully trimmed off a part of his bright disc; cf. आरोप्य चक्रभ्रमिमुष्णतेजास्त्वष्ट्रेव यत्नो- ल्लिखितो विभाति R.6.32. The part trimmed off is said to have been used by him in forming the discus of Viṣṇu, the Triśūla of Śiva, and some other weapons of the gods.] पर्वतं चापि जग्राह क्रुद्धस्त्वष्टा महाबलः Mb.1.227. 34. -3 Prajāpati (the creator); यां चकार स्वयं त्वष्टा रामस्य महिषीं प्रियाम् Mb.3.274.9. -4 Āditya, a form of the sun; निर्भिन्ने अक्षिणी त्वष्टा लोकपालो$विशद्विभोः Bhāg.3.6.15.
त्वाष्ट्र tvāṣṭra त्वाष्ट्र a. Belonging or coming from त्वष्टृ; त्वाष्ट्रं यद् दस्रावपिकक्ष्यं वाम् Rv.1.117.22. -ष्ट्रः Vṛitra; येनावृता इमे लोकास्तमसा त्वाष्ट्रमूर्तिना । स वै वृत्र इति प्रोक्तः पापः परमदारुणः ॥ Bhāg.6.9.18;11.12.5. -ष्ट्री 1 The asterism Chitra. -2 A small car. -ष्ट्रम् 1 Creative power; तपःसारमयं त्वाष्ट्रं वृत्रो येन विपाटितः Bhāg.8.11.35. -2 Copper.
grāmḥ ग्रामः [ग्रस्-मन् आदन्तादेशः] 1 A village, hamlet; पत्तने विद्यमाने$पि ग्रामे रत्नपरीक्षा M.1; त्यजेदेकं कुलस्यार्थे ग्रामस्यार्थे कुलं त्यजेत् । ग्रामं जनपदस्यार्थे स्वात्मार्थे पृथिवीं त्यजेत् ॥ H.1.129; R.1.44; Me.3. -2 A race, community; कथा ग्रामं न पृच्छसि Rv.1.146.1. -3 A multitude, collection (of any- thing); e. g. गुणग्राम, इन्द्रियग्राम; Bg.8.19;9.8. शस्त्रास्त्र- ग्रामकोविदः Bm.1.611,613.-गृह्यकः a village-carpenter.
Pali:
Taccha1 [Vedic takṣan, cp. taṣṭṛ, to takṣati (see taccheti), Lat. textor, Gr. te/ktwn carpenter (cp. architect), te/xnh art] a carpenter, usually as ˚ka: otherwise only in cpd. ˚sūkara the carpenter -- pig (=a boar, so called from felling trees), title & hero of Jātaka No. 492 (iv.342 sq.). Cp. vaḍḍhakin.
Taccha2 (adj.) [Der. fr. tathā+ya=tath -- ya "as it is," Sk. tathya] true, real, justified, usually in combn w. bhūta. bhūta taccha tatha, D i.190 (paṭipadā: the only true & real path) S v.229 (dhamma; text has tathā, v. l. tathaŋ better); as bhūta t. dhammika (well founded and just) D i.230. bhūta+taccha: A ii.100=Pug 50; VvA 72. -- yathā tacchaŋ according to truth Sn 1096. which is interpreted by Nd2 270: tacchaŋ vuccati amataŋ Nibbānaŋ, etc. -- (nt.) taccha a truth Sn 327. -- ataccha false, unreal, unfounded; a lie, a falsehood D i.3 (abhūta+); VvA 72 (=musā).
Tacchaka=taccha1. (a) a carpenter Dh 80 (cp. DhA ii.147); Miln 413. magga˚ a road -- builder J vi.348. -- (b)=taccha -- sūkara J iv.350. -- (c) a class of Nāgas D ii.258. -- f. tacchikā a woman of low social standing (=veṇī, bamboo -- worker) J v.306.
Tacchati [fr. taccha1, cp. taccheti] to build, construct; maggaŋ t. to construct or repair a road J vi.348.
Taccheti [probably a denom. fr. taccha1=Lat. texo to weave (orig. to plait, work together, work artistically), cp. Sk. taṣṭṛ architect =Lat. textor; Sk. takṣan, etc., Gr. te/xnh craft, handiwork (cp. technique), Ohg. dehsa hatchet. Cp. also orig. meaning of karoti & kamma] to do wood -- work, to square, frame, chip J i.201; Miln 372, 383.
Vaḍḍhaki (& ˚ī) [cp. Epic & Class. Sk. vardhaki & vardha- kin; perhaps from vardh to cut: see vaddheti] a carpenter, builder, architect, mason. On their craft and guilds see Fick, Sociale Gliederung 181 sq.; Mrs. Rh. D. Cambridge Hist. Ind.i.206. -- The word is specially characteristic of the Jātakas and other popular (later) literature J i.32, 201, 247; ii.170; vi.332 sq., 432; Ap. 51; DhA i.269; iv.207; Vism 94; PvA 141; Mhbv 154. -- iṭṭha˚ a stonemason Mhvs 35, 102; nagara˚ the city architect Miln 331, 345; brāhmaṇa˚ a brahmin carpenter J iv.207; mahā˚ chief carpenter, master builder Vism 463. In metaphor taṇhā the artificer lust DhA iii.128. -- gāma a carpenter village J ii.18, 405; iv.159.
Section 2. Rgveda refers to तक्षन् takṣan, an artisan expert in working in wood and metal
1. WE all have various thoughts and plans, and diverse are the ways of men. The Brahman seeks the worshipper, wright seeks the cracked, and leech the maimed. Flow, Indu, flow for Indras' sake. 2 The smith with ripe and seasoned plants, with feathers of the birds of air, With stones, and with enkindled flames, seeks him who hath a store of gold. Flow, Indu, flow for Indras' sake. 3 A bard am I, my dads' a leech, mammy lays corn upon the stones. Striving for wealth, with varied plans, we follow our desires like kine. Flow, Indu, flow for Indras' sake. 4 The horse would draw an easy car, gay hosts attract the laugh and jest. The male desires his mates' approach, the frog is eager for the flood, Flow, Indu, flow for Indras' sake. Wilson translation RV 9.112 9.112.01 Various are our acts, (various) are the occupations of men; the carpenter desires timber, the physician disease, the bra_hman.a a worshipper who effuses Soma; flow, Indu for Indra. 9.112.02 With dried plants (are arrows made), with the feathers of birds (and) with glistening stones; the smith seeks a man who has gold; flow, Indu, for Indra. 9.112.03 I am the singer; papa is the physician, mamma throws the corn upon the grinding stones; having various occupations, desiring riches we remain (in the world) like cattle (in the stall); flow, Indu, for Indra. [The singer...papa...mamma: ka_ruh = maker of praises; 'maker', 'poet'; tatah and na_na_ mean father (dada) and mother; or son and daughter respectively]. 9.112.04 The draught horse (desire) a cart easy (to draw); those who invite guests (desire) merriment; the frog desires water; flow, Indu, for Indra. [Easy to draw: auspicious; upamantrin.ah = narmasaciva_h, boon companions]. Section 3. Decipherment of Copper Anthropomorph of Indus Script tradition
Brāhmī inscription on Indus Script anthropomorph reads (on the assumption that Line 3 is an inscription with Indus Script hypertexts):
śam ña ga kī ma jhi tha mū̃h baṭa baran khāṇḍā
samjñā 'symbol, sign'
kī ma jhi tha 'of Majhitha'
Sha (?) Da Ya शदsad-a 'produce (of a country)'.-shad-ya,m. one who takes part in an assembly, spectator
Meaning:
Line 1 (Brāhmī syllables): samjñā 'symbol, sign' (of)
Line 2 (Brāhmī syllables): kī ma jhi tha 'of Majhitha locality or mã̄jhī boatpeople community or workers in textile dyeing: majīṭh 'madder'. The reference may also be to mañjāḍi (Kannada) 'Adenanthera seed weighing two kuṉṟi-mani, used by goldsmiths as a weight'.
Line 3 (Indus Script hieroglyphs): baṭa 'iron' bharat 'mixed alloys' (5 copper, 4 zinc and 1 tin) mū̃h'ingots' khāṇḍā 'equipments'.
Alternative reading of Line 3 (if read as Brāhmī syllables): Sha (?) Da Ya शदsad-a signifies: 'produce (of a country' or -shad-ya,m. one who takes part in an assembly, spectator.
Thus,an alternative reading is that the threelines may signify symbol of मांझीथा Majhīthā sadya 'assembly participant' or member of mã̄jhī boatpeople assembly (community).
Thus, this is a proclamation, a hoarding which signifies the Majitha locality (working in) iron, mixed alloys (bharat) ingots and equipments. Alternative reding is: symbol (of) produce of Majhitha locality or community
Alternatives:
A cognate word signifies boatman: *majjhika ʻ boatman ʼ. [Cf. maṅga -- ?] N. mājhi, mã̄jhi ʻ boatman ʼ; A. māzi ʻ steersman ʼ, B. māji; Or. mājhi ʻ steersman ʼ, majhiā ʻ boatman ʼ, Bi. Mth. H. mã̄jhī m.(CDIAL 9714).மஞ்சி2mañci, n. 1. cf. mañca. [M. mañji.] Cargo boat with a raised platform; படகு. Thus, a majhitha artisan is also a boatman.
A cognate word is: mañjiṣṭhā f. ʻ the Indian madder (Rubia cordifolia and its dye) ʼ Kauś. [mañjiṣṭha -- ] Pa. mañjeṭṭhī -- f. ʻ madder ʼ, Pk. maṁjiṭṭhā -- f.; K. mazēṭh, dat. ˚ṭhi f. ʻ madder plant and dye (R. cordifolia or its substitute Geranium nepalense) ʼ; S. mañuṭha, maĩṭha f. ʻ madder ʼ; P. majīṭ(h), mãj˚ f. ʻ root of R. cordifolia ʼ; N. majiṭho ʻ R. cordifolia ʼ, A. mezāṭhi, maz˚, OAw. maṁjīṭha f.; H. mãjīṭ(h), maj˚ f. ʻ madder ʼ, G. majīṭh f., Ko. mañjūṭi; -- Si. madaṭa ʻ a small red berry ʼ, madaṭiya ʻ the tree with red wood Adenanthera pavonina (Leguminosae) ʼ; Md. madoři ʻ a weight ʼ.māñjiṣṭha -- .Addenda: mañjiṣṭhā -- [Cf. Drav. Kan. mañcaṭige, mañjāḍi, mañjeṭṭi S. M. Katre]: S.kcch. majīṭh f. ʻ madder ʼ.(CDIAL 9718) மஞ்சிட்டிmañciṭṭi, n. < mañjiṣṭhā. 1. Munjeet, Indian madder, Rubia cordifolia; நீர்ப்பூடுவகை. (I. P.) 2. Arnotto. See சாப்பிரா. (L.) 3. Chayroot for dyeing; சாயவேர். (L.) மஞ்சாடிmañcāṭi, n. [T. manḍzādi, K. mañjāḍi.] 1. Red-wood, m. tr., Adenanthera paronina; மரவகை. 2. Adenanthera seed weighing two kuṉṟi-mani, used by goldsmiths as a weight; இரண்டு குன்றிமணிகளின் எடை கொண்ட மஞ்சாடிவித்து. (S. I. I. i, 114, 116.)
The wor manjhitha may be derived from the root: मञ्ज् mañj मञ्ज् 1 U. (मञ्जयति-ते) 1 To clean, purify, wipe off. Thus, the reference is to a locality of artisans engaged in purifying metals and alloys. Such purifiers or assayers of metal are also referred to as पोतदार pōtadāra m ( P) An officer under the native governments. His business was to assay all money paid into the treasury. He was also the village-silversmith. (Marathi)
Attached are 6 slides of a breath-taking splendour of Varāha Avatāra. Details are the key. They are Indus Script metaphors of a knowledge system signified by Devi Sarasvati on the snout of the boar.
The snout of the boar has two meanings: caSāla 'snout' caSāla 'wheat-chaff ring on yupa'. This wheat-chaff is set on fire with the pillar Yupa and the carbon fumes infuse into the molten metal to transform iron into steel. (Authority: S'atapatha Brahmana) Thus, the artisan achieves carbonated steel of extraordinary hardness. Revolution in metallurgy.
Varāha monolith sculpture is itself an Indus Script hieroglyph: badhi 'boar' rebus badhi 'worker in wood and iron'. The Meluhha story begins from here. The word pronunciation variant is Bārāhī ବାରାହୀ 'female divinity in the form of a boar'. In Kannada the word is badiga, 'five artificers'. See detailed explanation of the Kannada word in the images embedded on last slide with a carnelian ring from Keeladi with Varāha hieroglyph. The ring belongs to an artisan, worker in wood and iron. The carnelian came from Gujarat of Sarasvati-Sindhu Civilization.
Varāha is a celebration of the contribution made by artisans, our Pitr-s to the wealth of the Rashtram, Bharatam janam.
What the Khajuraho Varāha monolith statue with over 720 sculptural friezes of people, artisans, worshippers, divinities is a celebration of the wealth created for the Rashtram. The text metaphors ARE Indus Script hieroglyphs in writing to convey the tribute paid to the artisans, artificers, workers in wood and metal of guilds creating the wealth of the nation. So, we pray at the feet of the Devi shown on the Varāha temple of Khajuraho which is part of the Citragupta temple complex. Citragupta means 'cipher''secret picture writing'. Citragupta is the accountant of Yama keeping account of every worshipper's deeds, good and bad. Citragupta is Accountant par excellence, ledger keeper. Varāha Pratimā is the wealth-accounting ledger for the nation.
The decipherment of Nagwada seal impression and a stamp seal reported by Suzanne Harris in her doctoral dissertation at UPenn, Pennsylvania, conclusively proves the function of Indus Script inscriptions to document metalwork wealth created and traded. As Suzanne Harris notes "(Nagwada) population participated in a greater Mature Harappan economic and administrative network."
This monograph demonstrates the essential semantic and cultural unity of ALL Indian languages. There was no language-divide between North and South, East and West. The Sarasvati-Sindhu Civilization area was a sprachbund, 'speech union' or linguistic area where many language speakers absorbed language features from one another and made them their own. There cannot be a stronger evidence for NATIONAL UNITY than this linguistic affirmation of the Meluhha sprachbund. Meluhha simply means mispronunciation, thus reinforcing dialectical pronunciation variants of core vocabularies of ALL Indian languages. Meluhha is cognate with Mleccha in ancient Bharatiya texts. These Meluhha people created the mlecchita vikalpa 'cypher writing' described as one of the 64 arts to be taught to the young, by Vatsyayana in his VidyA Samuddesa text.
Chalcoithic settlements of North Gujarat
Almost all sites have reported carnelian, 'akkikkal' beads. This carnelian is found as a ring with an inscription at Keeladi.The Indus Script reading of the hieroglyph is: badhi 'boar' rebus: badhi 'worker in wood and iron' baDiga 'artificer'. This carnelian ring of Keeladi demonstrates that people of Gujarat Sarasvati_Sindhu civilization settlements moved south along the coastline and reached Keeladi.
This is evidenced in a textual reference from Purananuru, discussed in Section 3. These evidences demonstrate the essential semantic and cultural unity between language speakers of Gujarat and language speakers of Tamil Nadu of centuries Before Common Era.
Section 1. Nagwada seal impression
Field symbol:short-horned bull: balar, barad 'ox' Rebus: bharata 'metal alloy' (5 copper, 4 zinc and 1 tin)
Text message:
dāṭu 'cross' rebus: dhatu 'mineral ore'
kuṭi 'curve' rebus: kuṭhi 'smelter' (Santali)kuṭi 'curve; rebus: कुटिल kuṭila, katthīl (8 parts copper, 2 parts tin) bronze
muh 'bun ingot shape' rebus: mũhã̄ 'ingot'
ḍhaṁkaṇa 'lid' rebus dhakka 'excellent, bright, blazing metal article'
खांडा khāṇḍā A jag, notch, or indentation (as upon the edge of a tool' rebus: khaṇḍa 'implements
sal 'splinter' rebus: sal 'workshop'
kolmo 'rice plant' rebus:kolimi 'smithy, forge'
Section 2. Nagwada stamp seal
Four dotted circles: gaṇḍa 'set of four' (Santali) rebus: khaṇḍa 'equipment'(Santali)
Hieroglyph: Dotted circle:dhã̄ī 'strand' rebus: dhatu 'mineral ore' dhāˊtu 'ore of red metal' PLUS Hieroglhyph: circle: vr̥ttá ʻ turned ʼ RV., ʻ rounded ʼ ŚBr. 2. ʻ completed ʼ MaitrUp., ʻ passed, elapsed (of time) ʼ KauṣUp. 3. n. ʻ conduct, matter ʼ ŚBr., ʻ livelihood ʼ Hariv. [√vr̥t1]1. Pa. vaṭṭa -- ʻ round ʼ, n. ʻ circle ʼ; Pk. vaṭṭa -- , vatta -- , vitta -- , vutta -- ʻ round ʼ; L. (Ju.) vaṭ m. ʻ anything twisted ʼ; Si. vaṭa ʻ round ʼ, vaṭa -- ya ʻ circle, girth (esp. of trees) ʼ; Md. va'ʻ round ʼ GS 58; -- Paš.ar. waṭṭəwīˊk, waḍḍawik ʻ kidney ʼ ( -- wĭ̄kvr̥kká -- ) IIFL iii 3, 192? rebus: vṛtta, va 'wealth business'; Pa. vatta -- n. ʻ duty, office ʼ; Pk. vaṭṭa -- , vatta -- , vitta -- , vutta -- n. ʻ livelihood ʼ; P. buttā m. ʻ means ʼ; Ku. buto ʻ daily labour, wages ʼ; N. butā ʻ means, ability ʼ; H. oūtā m. ʻ power ʼ; Si. vaṭa ʻ subsistence, wages ʼ.(CDIAL 12069). Together rebus: dhāvaḍa 'smelter',
"One Indus clay seal impression depicting a bull (IAR 1987–88:20) and one steatite stamp seal (inscribed with serie recente style circles) were found here (Figure 5.27). A study by Randall Law (2008:400) suggests the steatite is from a source similar to a seal found at Bagasra, which was probably acquired locally. Agate cube weights were also found, mostly in pits. These objects prove beyond a doubt that this population participated in a greater Mature Harappan economic and administrative network." (Suzanne Harris, 2011, ibid., p. 208)
Abstract Nine relatively obscure sites in the northern plain of Gujarat, India: Loteshwar, Santhli, Datrana, Nagwada, Langhnaj, Zekhada, Ratanpura and Kanewal; demonstrate a broad range of material culture traditions present in this region throughout the fourth through second millennia BC. This diversity results from the numerous economic strategies employed by the inhabitants of this region, the most important of which is mobility. Most of the sites reviewed in this work are the remains of temporary occupations, which are usually ascribed to pastoral nomads. Although pastoralism was an important subsistence strategy, a closer examination of the material culture and features at these sites shows there was a spectrum of approaches to mobility, which were related to different economic strategies. This work will show that despite many similarities, these sites do not represent a homogenous set of pastoralist camps. Instead, they document manifold activities, reflected through the uses of material culture and space.
Section 3. Reference to Dwaraka as Tuvarai in an ancient Sangam text and migration from Sarasvati-Sindhu CIvilization to Tamil Nadu See:
Ayasipur is a Vedic expression. अयस् n. iron , metal RV. &c अयस्मय (अयोमय) a. (-यीf.) Ved. Made of iron or of any metal. -यी N. of one of the three habita- tions of Asuras. pur पुर् f. (Nom. sing. पूः; instr. du. पूर्भ्याम्) 1 A town, fortified town; thus ayasipur refers to a fortification made of stone or metal. (पूरण्यभिव्यक्तमुखप्रसादा R.16.23)
துவரை² tuvarai, n. See துவாரகை. உவரா வீகைத் துவரை யாண்டு (புறநா. 201). துவாரகை tuvārakai, n. < dvārakā. The capital of Kṛṣṇa on the western side of Gujarat, supposed to have been submerged by the sea, one of catta-puri, q. v.; சத்தபுரியுளொன் றாயதும் கடலாற்கொள்ளப்பட்ட தென்று கருதப்படுவதும் கண்ணபிரான் அரசுபுரிந்ததுமான நகரம்.
This Vedic expression ayasipur is consistent with the description of Dwaraka in Purananuru as a fortification with walls made of copper (metal).
இவர் யார் என்குவை ஆயின் இவரே ஊருடன் இரவலர்க்கு அருளித் தேருடன்
முல்லைக்கு ஈத்த செல்லா நல்லிசை படுமணி யானைப் பறம்பின் கோமான் நெடுமாப் பாரி மகளிர் யானே தந்தை தோழன் இவர் என் மகளிர் அந்தணன் புலவன் கொண்டு வந்தனனே நீயே வட பால் முனிவன் தடவினுள் தோன்றிச் செம்பு புனைந்து இயற்றிய சேண் நெடும் புரிசை உவரா ஈகைத் துவரை யாண்டு நாற்பத்து ஒன்பது வழி முறை வந்த வேளிருள் வேள விறல் போர் அண்ணல் தார் அணி யானைச் சேட்டு இருங்கோவே ஆண் கடன் உடைமையின் பாண் கடன் ஆற்றிய ஒலியற் கண்ணிப் புலிகடிமாஅல் யான் தர இவரைக் கொண்மதி வான் கவித்து இரும் கடல் உடுத்த இவ் வையகத்து அரும் திறல் பொன்படு மால் வரைக் கிழவ வென் வேல் உடலுநர் உட்கும் தானைக் கெடல்அரும் குரைய நாடு கிழவோயே !
If you ask who they are, they are his daughters, he who granted cities to those who came in need and earned great fame for gifting a chariot to the jasmine vine to climb, he who owned elephants with jingling bells, the lord of Parampu, the great king Pāri. They are my daughters now. As for me, I am their father’s friend, a Brahmin, a poet who has brought them here.
You are the best Vēlir of the Vēlir clan, with a heritage of forty nine generations of Vēlirs who gave without limits, who ruled Thuvarai with its long walls that seemed to be made of copper, the city that appeared in the sacrificial pit of a northern sage (Yaja). King who is victorious in battles!
Great king with garlanded elephants! Pulikatimāl with a bright garland who knows what a man’s responsibility is, and what you can do for bards! I am offering them. Please accept them. Lord of the sky high mountain that yields gold! You whose strength cannot be equaled on the earth that is covered by an arched sky and surrounded by the ocean, you whose army puts fear into enemies with victorious spears! O ruler of a land that can never be ruined!
Irunkovel is supposed to be 49th generation of a king from (Thuvarai) Dwaraka. It can mean two things. Assuming about 30 years per generation, 1500 years earlier Dwaraka which had walls made of copper. Dating the early phase of Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization to ca. 3500 BCE, and the submergence of Dwaraka to ca. 1900 BCE (a date indicative of the drying up of Vedic River Sarasvati due to migrations of Sutlej and Yamuna rivers which were tributaries bringing in glacier waters), which necessitated the movements of Sarasvati's children down the coastline to Kerala, this text places Sangam literature text of Purananuru to ca. 400 BCE.
Migration from Tuvarai (Dwaraka) is attested in a 12th century inscription (Pudukottai State inscriptions, No.
120) cited by Avvai S. Turaicaami in Puranaanuru, II (SISSW Publishing Soc., Madras, 1951).
•துவரை மாநகர் நின்ருபொந்த தொன்மை பார்த்துக்கிள்ளிவேந்தன் நிகரில் தென் கவரி நாடு தன்னில் நிகழ்வித்த நிதிவாளர்
Excerpts from Jayasree Saranathan's blogpost
The first one - the most obvious one which many readers of Sangam texts would have known - is found in poet Kapilar's song on the VeL king, Irungo veL
( இருங்கோ வேள்) compiled as the 201st verse in Purananuru. I will take up the explanation later in the series. In the current post I want to focus on a description of copper plated walls or walls made of copper of Dwaraka.
We know that Dwaraka and Gujarat present a very rich archeological source for IVC. The contention of Dr Parpola and the Dravidian politicians of Tamilnadu is that Tamils have descended form the IVC locations of North India. The verse by poet Kapilar in fact traces the origins of the King IrungoveL to Dwaraka. He says that he belonged to the 49th generation of the king who was born of the Sacrificial Fire conducted by the sage of the North. This king ruled Dwaraka, so says the poet. Reserving the other details of this verse for a future post, I am now concentrating on another description in that song.
Kapilar describes Dwaraka as being surrounded by walls made of copper.
நீயே, வடபால் முனிவன் தடவினுள் தோன்றிச்,செம்பு புனைந்து இயற்றிய சேண்நெடும்புரிசை, உவரா ஈகைத், துவரை ஆண்டு,நாற்பத்து ஒன்பது வழிமுறை வந்த வேளிருள்வேளே!
This means "O king IrungoveL! you were the 49th king in the lineage of the king, who was born of the sacrificial fire conducted by the sage and ruled Dwarka which was surrounded by long / tall walls of copper."
From the commentary that Dr U.Ve.Sa found out form the palm leaf manuscripts :-
"நீ தான் வட பக்கத்து முனிவனுடைய ஓம குண்டத்தின் கண் தோன்றிச் செம்பால்புனைத்து செய்தாலொத்த சேய்மையை உடைத்தாகிய நெடிய மதிலை உடைய துவராவதிஎன்னும் படை வீட்டை ஆண்டு, வெறுப்பில்லாத கொடையினை உடையராய்நாற்பத்தொன்பது தலைமுறை தொன்றுபட்டு வந்த வேள்களுள் வைத்து வேளாய்உள்ளாய்!"
This king was not in Dwaraka when Kapilar met him and sang this verse. He was ruling some part of the western ghats in present day's Karnataka. This Vel's kingdom was different from the Tamil lands of the 3 kings (Chera, Chola and Pandya). The next verse was on the same king sung by Kapilar in which he describes his land in the hills. This king's palace was not surrounded by walls of copper. Copper walls were there in the kingdom of his ancestors in Dwaraka.
Assuming that 3 kings lived per century, we can say that 1600 years have passed by the time this 49th king had come into being. The period of this king is not exactly known, but can be deciphered from Kapilar's other connections. Kapilar was a close friend of another VeL king, Paari who was killed by the 3 Tamil kings. Kapilar took care of Parri's orphaned daughters and approached another Vel king, IrungoveL to request him to marry the two daughters of Paari. This verse contains that request.
If we know the time period of Paari, we can ascertain the original period of the king of Dwaraka mentioned in this verse. Paari and other Vel kings were regarded as the 3rd and last group of Patrons (கடை ஏழு வள்ளல்கள்).
The Vel lineage seems to have ended by the time Silapapdhikaram was written.
Silappadhikaram is about the Cheran king Neduncheralaathan (நெடுஞ்சேரலாதன்) who brought the stone from Himalayas to construct a temple for Kannagi. He conquered kings of the North and brought them as prisoners (They were made to carry the stone).
He later released them and ordered his deputy to keep them in the palace of the Vel king, by name Aavikko (வேளாவிக்கோ).
The king showed the palace of Velaavikko surrounded by cool waters and gardens in the city of Vanji (his capital city).
(Vanji is perhaps Kochi of Kerala.)
From this we can say that the Vels were there before 1st century AD. 1600 years before that period coincides with the time of Dwarkan excavations given by Prof S.R Rao on Bet Dwaraka.Bet Dwaraka was a later-built city which is dated at 1520 BC by Prof Rao
This date does not coincide with Krishna's date as we saw in the previous post in this series. Krishna's time precedes by another 1500 years.
Krishna's Dwaraka could have been very much under the sea as there is marine archeological proof of very old habitations - now sunken - of a period, 5000 years to 7500 years ago.
The Vel king of this sangam verse might have had his lineage traced to the Dwarakan king of Bet Dwaraka.
Further explanations will be discussed in other posts in this series.
Here I want to throw light on similar mention of copper walls in other Sangam texts also.
The areas connected with such walls were in Tamil lands.
Use of copper and construction of copper walls or copper plated walls had been there in Dwaraka and in Tamil nadu as well.
The unearthed artifacts in IVC sites include copper items and copper statues.
The mold used for making statues that are found in IVC are the same as the molds that are still being used today.
It is inferred from this that the use of copper for various purposes had been there since 2000 BC.
Similar use in IVC areas and in Tamilnadu shows that either the knowledge of it and the technology to put into use had been widespread throughout India for 1000s of years (or 4000 years at the minimum)
or the people from Dwaraka (whose descendants ruled Tamil lands with the titular name VeL) brought that knowledge to Tamilnadu.
Whatever it could be,
the import of these verses is that the so-called Dravidians of IVC could have closer connection to Vel kings of Dwaraka
than with the Tamils of Tamilnadu.
The Dwarakan link to this king is traced to the one born out of sacrificial fire.
I submit that Br̥bu takṣan is the seafaring merchant-artificer of Sarasvati - Sindhu Civilization.(Discussed at तक्षन् of Rgveda, synonym is Indus Script hieroglyh, baḍhi 'boar' rebus: baḍhi 'worker in wood and iron' https://tinyurl.com/vbddxz8) Br̥bu takṣan is a pious donor. The narrative is preserved by Manu (10.107) and नीतिमंजरी. I submit that this extraordinary savant is celebrated as Khajurāho Varāha mandiram, temple. This is the highest tribute, homage to an ātman 'life-principle' and Sarasvatī, embodiment of knowledge systems, shown on the snout of the divine boar. Indus Script hieroglyph: caṣāla'snout of a boar' Rebus: caṣāla'wheat-chaff, godhuma, to infuse carbon into molten iron to convert it into steel.' (शतपथ-ब्राह्मण)
The meanings of takṣan- related expressions to signify 'merchant, blacksmith' are most significant. These meanings are consistent with the use of Varāha, badhi 'boar' to signify a merchant-metalworker whose professional calling card is a copper/bronze anthropomorph. We know that the one-horned young bull signifies kunda 'fine gold' and singi 'ornament gold' and kunda is a lapidary/turner. বরা barā: the boar, the hog.বরাহ barāha: the boar, the hog; the third incarnation of Vishnu (বিষ্ণু) when he slew Bara (বরা) the demon. fem. বরাহী the sow (Bengali) This Bengali pronunciation variants explains how badhi (Santali, Meluhha word) has a cognate in Varāha both meaning 'boar'. In Rgveda, वराह signifies (derivation doubtful) a boar , hog , pig , wild boar RV. &c (ifc. it denotes , " superiority , pre-eminence " ; »g.व्याघ्रा*दि)(RV)(Monier-Williams)वाराह vārāha वाराहa.(-हीf.) [वराहस्येदं प्रियत्वात् अण्] Relating to a boar; वाराहीमात्मयोनेस्तनुमवनविधावास्थितस्यानुरूपाम् Mu.7. 19; Y.1.259; शक्तिः साप्याययौ तत्र वाराहीं विभ्रती तनुम् Devīmāhātmya.-हः 1A boar.-2A kind of tree.-Comp. -कर्णीPhysalis Flexuosa (अश्वगन्धा).-कल्पःN. of the presentKalpa(that in which we are at present living).-पुराणम् N. of one of the 18 Purāṇas. वाराही vārāhī वाराही 1 A sow.-2The earth.-3The Śakti of Viṣṇu in the form of a boar.-4A measure.-Comp. -कन्दः N. of a bulbous plant (Mar. डुकरकंद). वराहः varāhḥ वराहः [वराय अभीष्टाय मुस्तादिलाभाय आहन्ति भूमिम् आ-हन्-ड Tv.] 1 A boar, hog; विस्रब्धं क्रियतां वराहततिभिर्मुस्ताक्षतिः पल्वले Ś.2.6. -2 A ram. -3 A bull. -4 A cloud. -5 A crocodile. -6 An array of troops in the form of a boar. -7 N. of Viṣṇu in the third or boar incarnation; cf. वसति दशनशिखरे धरणी तव लग्ना शशिनि कलङ्ककलेव निमग्ना । केशव धृतशूकररूप जय जगदीश हरे Gīt.1. -8 A particular measure. -9 N. of Varāhamihira -1 N. of one of the 18 Purāṇas. -11 A mountain; L. D. B. -12 A coin; L. D. B. -13 A kind of grass; L. D. B. -Comp. -अवतारः the boar or third incarnation of Viṣṇu. -कन्दः a kind of esculent root. -कर्णः a kind o arrow; वराह- कर्णैर्नालोकैविकर्णैश्चाभ्यवीवृषत् Mb.7.166.24. -कर्णिका a kind of missile. -कल्पः the period of the boar incarnation, the period during which Viṣṇu assumed the form of a boar. -क्रान्ता the sensitive plant. -द्वादशी a festival held on the 12th day in the bright half of Māgha in honour of Viṣṇu. -नामन्n. an esculent root. -पुराणम् N. of one of the 18 major purāṇas. -मिहिरः N. of a celebrated astronomer, author of बृहत्संहिता (supposed to be one of the 'nine gems' at the court of king Vikrama). -शृङ्गः N. of Śiva.(Apte)
बृबु N. of a man (according to Sa1y. " the carpenter of the पणिs ") RV. vi , 45 , 31Mn. x , 107; पणि a bargainer , miser , niggard (esp. one who is sparing of sacrificial oblations) RV. AV.; a market; N. of a class of envious demons watching over treasures RV. (esp. x , 108) AV. S3Br. (Monier-Williams)
It is extraordinary and most significant, that the RV 6.45.31 to 33 are addressed to devatāBr̥bu takṣan. The artificer-merchant was the key contributor to the creation of the wealth of a Rashtram.
Griffith translation: RV 6.45.31 to 33:
31 Brbu hath set himself above the Panis, over their highest head, Like the wide bush on Gangas' bank. 32 He whose good bounty, thousandfold, swift as the rushing of the wind, Suddenly offers as a gift. 33 So all our singers ever praise the pious Brbus' noble deed, Chief, best to give his thousands, best to give a thousand liberal gifts.
Wilson translation: RV 6.45.31 to 33:
6.045.31 Br.bu presided over the high places of the Pan.is, like the elevated bank of the Ganges. [br.bu pan.i_na_m vars.is.t.he mu_rdhan adhyastha_t = he stood over upon the high place, as if it were on the forehead of the Pan.is; mu_rdhavat ucchrite sthale; the Pan.is may be either merchants or traders, or asuras, so termed; like the elevated bank of the Ganges: uruh kaks.o na ga_n:gyah = gan:ga_ya_h kule visti_rn.e iva_, as on the broad bank of the Ganges, that is, as the bank is above the bed of the river. 6.045.32 Of whom, prompt as the wind, the liberal donation of thousands (of cattle) has been quickly given to (me) soliciting a gift. 6.045.33 Whom, therefore, we all, who are the profferers and bestowers of praise ever commend, as the pious Br.bu, the donor of thousands (of cattle), the receiver of thousands (of laudations). [Br.bu is called Taks.a_ the carpenter or artificer of the Pan.is; the legend is preserved by Manu (10.107) and Ni_ti Man~jari_: the illustrious Bharadva_ja, with his son, distressed by hunger in a lonely forest, accepted many cows from the carpenter Br.bu; the r.ca is attributed to Sayu, the son of Bharadva_ja; ja_tito hino api da_tr.tva_t sarvatra s'res.t.ho bhavati, a person inferior by caste becomes everywhere distinguished by generosity].
The U.S. Department of Education announced Wednesday that it is launching an investigation into Harvard and Yale after they failed to disclose about $375 million in gifts and contracts from China and Saudi Arabia in the past four years.
Harvard and Yale are the latest in the Education Department’s continuing efforts to crack down on foreign influence, particularly from China. According to the Wall Street Journal, U.S. universities have failed to report they brought in $6.5 billion from foreign nations since 1990.
A major aspect of the alleged foreign influence on universities is through gifts and grants, which can come with strings attached and might compromise their academic independence.
“This is about transparency,” U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos said in a statement Wednesday. “If colleges and universities are accepting foreign money and gifts, their students, donors, and taxpayers deserve to know how much and from whom. Moreover, it’s what the law requires. Unfortunately, the more we dig, the more we find that too many are underreporting or not reporting at all. We will continue to hold colleges and universities accountable and work with them to ensure their reporting is full, accurate, and transparent, as required by the law.”
On top of failing to disclose possible financial conflicts to academic freedom, Harvard even sponsored a 30-year old Chinese national who’ve attempted to steal research.
The Chinese national, Zaosong Zheng, was recently arrested at Boston Logan International Airport allegedly with stolen 21 vials of cancer research material he was attempting to smuggle to China. Prosecutors alleged he attempted to steal the material to bring to China so he could conduct his own research in his laboratory.
In addition to Zaosong’s arrest, Charles Lieber, the chairman of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard, was arrested on Jan. 28 on charges he lied about his ties the Chinese government’s Thousand Talents Plan.
Lieber also allegedly admitted that Harvard lacks the ability to track very large donations, a point echoed in the Education Department’s statement.
“The Department is also concerned Harvard University may lack appropriate institutional controls over foreign money and has failed to report fully all foreign gifts and contracts as required by law,” the Education Department statement read.
The Boston region is in itself a hotbed for Chinese government espionage and research theft, U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling claimed last month.
“This is a small sample of China’s ongoing campaign to siphon off American technology and know-how for Chinese gain,” he said. “Chinese economic espionage and theft is a real and daily occurrence that we must begin to confront.”
“As demonstrated by these cases, on the academic side, the Chinese government uses partnerships and exchanges with U.S. schools and research institutions to access cutting-edge research and equipment,” Lelling added. “Obviously, most visiting Chinese academics and researchers are here to work in good faith in U.S. institutions. But some of them are not.”
This is the first post in a series of 4+, on the origins and history of Traditions. From the a learner’s perspective.
As a student, I always found that I had to be able to explain things to myself before I could regurgitate them on tests: my mind went blank otherwise. Recently I started understanding a few things that have always puzzled me. So I must first find a defensible starting point, then try to find the continuity before ‘hisory’ makes sense to me. But first note that the question mark in the title is not a typo or an unrecognized character. Let me try to explain.
The observable Universe is today considered to extend about 13.77 billion light years away from Earth in very direction. It is getting older as I type so I will leave it at 13.7 since no one says it has reached it’s 13.8Billionth birthday. Are we at the center of the Universe? Current thinking is that we are. In fact you are. And so am I. And by that logic so is that point 13.77 billion light years away: we were all at one point before Space extended, at an increasing rate. A year, as you know is the time it takes for our planet Earth to complete one orbit around the Sun. The Sun is one of billions of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, which is one of billions of Galaxies that are within our sensing ability. {A hint: DO Not believe those “pictures” of the Milky Way showing it as a spinning pinwheel – they cannot be of the Milky Way: Ask yourself: who took that photo and how? Some Selfie-Arm, hain? We can only see a part of it, and that, edge-on, since we are inside it.}
Why 13.77 billion years? Let me see what I remember from pages torn out of a very nice special issue of Scientific American from some years ago. Our observations are limited by the speed of light. Light that started a bit later than 13.77 Billion years ago, i.e., than the Original Instant, has barely managed to reach us, but it looks so stretched out that its wavelength is now very deep into the far, far infra-red part of the spectrum. And that defines the furthest out in Space and Time that we can see.
What has frequency and wavelength to do with History? Back in middle school, they tried to teach me that the White Light that we see at the bottom of Earth’s atmosphere, is comprised of a continuous ‘spectrum’ of colors from the deep violet (Ultra-Violet) to the deep red (Infra-Red). They showed me how light going through a prism splits into several colors.
During summers I experimented with crystal pieces torn from the ancient ruins of a lamp fixture at my ancestral home. The Rainbow shows the same thing as sunlight goes through water droplets. Most stars have similar ‘spectra’. Then they told me that light can be considered to be waves of many colors: We see colors when light waves reach our eyes and shake the neurons of the optic nerve. Apparently each color is related to the wavelength and the frequency of the light, through the famous formula: Frequency times Wavelength = Speed of Light. Frequency is expressed in cycles per second, and Wavelengh in meters. The Speed of Light in vacuum is a constant (in other stuff it is lower): Three hundred million meters per second. So how long does it take for light to travel one meter? It takes roughly 3 nanoseconds. Or, Light travels about one foot in a nanosecond.
Prof. Doppler is credited with standing around at railroad crossings like I used to do as a child, waving to the Engine Drivers. It was my then-view of the Pinnacle of Human Endeavor: keeping all those wheels precisely on those thin metal tracks at such speed with unwavering attention! But Dr. Doppler noticed something special: the train whistle sounded a lot more like Lata Mangeshkar or P. Leela coming towards him, but more like Amitabh Bacchan going away! This is called the Doppler Effect: A wave traveling towards us looks like a high-frequency wave, while one traveling away is lower-frequency. Transferred to light, this means that light coming towards us from an object approaching us is shifted towards the blue (high-frequency end) and light coming from an object that is receding is shifted to the red (low frequency).
What defines our sensing ability?
The present understanding is that (at least) 13.7 Billion years ago, Space started expanding with time, from a point. This was not an Explosion, where speed of fragments decreases as they move away from the origin. It was an Expansion, were Space itself grew bigger.
So scientists apparently gauge the distance and the speed of stars (related through their models of the acceleration of the expanding Universe) by the color of the stars. Stars far away are moving away from us, so they are Red-Shifted. Stars coming towards us (fortunately few seen so far!) are Blue-Shifted.
Thus we can ask: “where was the Earth with respect to the Center of the Universe?” The answer is simple: It was at the Center. You were at the Center. So was I. So was the Andromeda Galaxy, and everything else. It was Space itself that has been expanding, ever faster. Light that emanated from the stars ‘out there’ beyond that 13.7 Billion light-years limit, has been trying to reach us, but Space keeps expanding (at least?) at the speed of light. We cannot see their signals we cannot hear them, not they us. This is also the absolute limit of the Red Shift in the light from those stars, even if we could see them. The center of the visible spectrum is green: about 10,000 billion cycles per second. Wavelength of 500 nanometers. Very low frequencies are infra-red: 1000 nanometers. Even lower are millimeter waves. And microwaves (10 millimeters – plus). And radio waves: all the way to 100 meters and above. We cannot sense longer wavelength radiation: there is so little amplitude, and it is difficult to measure accurately. So the most “red-shifted” radiation that we can measure, appears to come from galaxies that are now 13.77 billion years away.
And that idea is what bounds the Universe as we know it. We can only ‘see’ galaxies due to the electromagnetic radiation that they emit. “Light”, even it if is ultraviolet, or X-rays or Gamma Rays.
In a nutshell, today’s physicists tell us that the Universe as we can sense it, originated some 13.7 Billion years ago. 13.77 and counting.. So what happens one billion years from now? ‘We’, or those who live then, will still see only 13.7 Billion light-years’ worth of Universe!! Those at the edge today, will be far, far beyond that limit. Now you see the reason for the question mark in the title: I don’t know how Physicists resolve that problem with their model. I think they reason that “what we can’t see or feel, don’t bother us!”
But what if we could have figured this out 2000 years ago? The Universe now would be known to be 13.7 billion and 2000 light-years in radius. You can see where this is going: Perhaps there are huge numbers of galaxies beyond, but we can never know about them through actual measurement. Perhaps our minds can reach there.
In The Beginning… A Radiant Egg
Only energy existed at the beginning. That conveniently fit the Belief systems of the Abrahamic religions {“In the Beginning the Lord said: Let there be Light!”, as well as our far older Rg Veda {“At the Beginning there was a Shining Egg of Pure Energy”}.
As Space expanded, nonuniformities pulled some of the energy to get converted to Matter. Where Matter was close enough, gravitational pull overcame whatever was pulling Space apart. And here I learned something very interesting. Light, and all electromagnetic radiation, exerts force. Pressure distributed over an surface on which it falls. This brilliant idea (no pun intended) accounts for why stars do not collapse or explode all the time: the radiation pushes in all directions as gravity pulls.
Light also exhibits another characteristic of things that have mass: It gets pulled by gravity. Apparently Albert Einstein predicted that star-light coming around other stars or galaxies should get deflected just a little bit. Today we think that it can actually get pulled completely into gravitational Black Holes, there’s one sitting at the center of our Milky Way, by the way.
And something turned energy into tiny, tiny subatomic particles. Several particles can be interpreted as Matter or as Energy. Galaxy-sized clumps formed. The research at this interface is something that I have given up trying to explain. There is a thing called String Theory, but recently I found out that the term String comes from the analogy between violin strings that make noise by vibration, and the discrete Energy States that they taught me in Quantum Mechanics. Big deal! The idea is that subatomic particles behave like an old bus that gets stuck either in first gear or 5th gear: It can travel at 10 kilometers per hour, or 25, but nothing in between. “Quantized Degree of Freedom” to recite what I had to learn.
But an interesting fact that I picked up by keeping my ears open at a conference: These nuclear physicists who came with stratospheric Security Clearances were chatting during the break after one of my papers, oblivious of me: Dr. Andrei Sakharov, the (outspoken) Russian nuclear physicist, got his Nobel Prize for figuring out that the radiation pressure is what balanced the gravity inside a star – and what sustained the nuclear fusion. Oh.. not just in stars but in hydrogen bombs…
Nowadays they have figured out a full Life Cycle for stars, from birth from a cloud, to nuclear fission to fusion to “burnout” and gravitational collapse, to either extinction, or a massive SuperNova explosion, back into a cloud again. There’s a SuperNova predicted to occur soon, fortunately quite far away.
So! in the galaxies, energy turned into Matter: subatomic particles formed into bigger clumps, and eventally into stars, where nuclear fusion formed more complex atoms. The galaxies accelerated away from each other, the Space separating them getting ever bigger.
Meanwhile in our Milky Way galaxy, a cloud condensed, and formed our Sun. Roughly 4.6 Billion years ago. And around the Sun formed several planets in orbits, good-sized Moons orbiting the planets, and billions of fragments that occasionally crossed paths with the Moons or Planets with catastrophic effects.
We will next shift down to this small window of 4.6 billion years: the history of our Solar System.
Synopsis:
In the first post of this series, we connected the present timeline of the Universe, down to the start of the Solar System. So now we have established a finite time line for our “sensible” history. Thirteen billion seven hundred and seventy billion years. Let us fast-forward to about 4.5 billion years ago, when the Solar system formed.
Are We (Sitting On) The Scum Of The Earth?
Earth began its existence as a very hot, spinning, molten ball, with radioactive reactions (nuclear fission) providing heat from inside, as gravity compressed it.
Slowly, the less dense materials such as Silicon Dioxide (soil) were displaced upwards as the denser materials pushed down due to gravity, like pieces of metal sinking in mud. The surface layers cooled first, and solidified. At first this shell was not very deep, and formed thin plates that drifted around on the inner molten ball. Even now the solid outer layer is only about 50 kilometers deep, out of a total “volumetric mean” radius of 6357 kilometers. Strangely we seem to know only about as much about the inside core of Earth as we do about the Moon or Mars: no probe as gone there except in the imagination of authors such as Jules Verne. We do know that the density of the solid outer core, which is less than 3 times that of water, does not explain the total mass and the average density (5.515 times that of water) of Earth: the thinking today is that there is a solid inner core extending to 1200 kilometers radius, with another liquid core (molten iron and other metals) extending to some 3400 kilometers radius. The density of the inner solid core is on the order of 13 times that of water, suggesting very heavy metals (iron is only around 7.8, mercury around 13). Above the liquid, not very viscous, molten layer, is the more viscous Mantle, about 2900km thick, with silicate and metals.
Now it gets interesting. The solid outer crust is much more dense (but thinner) under the oceans, than the landmass. In other words, the land (continents) were displaced and pushed up as the denser materials sank. This explains a bit more to me, how the land could have been pushed around the surface by the denser stuff.
The oldest rocks found, are about 4.4 billion years old. About 4 billion years ago, conditions became such that Life started on Earth, believed to be first in the liquid water oceans. Possibly this is because the oceans offered a reliable “climate” with pretty uniform temperature. More on this later, on why civilizations would first start where the weather is not extreme.
Unique? Alone? Abusing the Hospitality of Planet Virus-stan?
We do not know exactly how lifeless collections of molecules first formed into living organisms: this is still one of the central mysteries that we face. No one has yet managed to create living beings out of just materials. There is debate about the exact definition of a living being, but there is general agreement that such a being has not yet been artificially created from non-living matter. So we cannot claim with any proof that the life-forms which arose on Earth never existed anywhere before. Those questions of philosophy are outside our scope, and beyond the reach of our brains at present. Here it is fair to mention that Earth is supposed to be in a very fortuitous location with respect to the Sun, to have liquid water year-round, as well as an atmosphere that succeeds in stopping most of the Solar (from our Sun) and Cosmic (from elsewhere) radiation that would kill living cells. The gravity is just enough to hold most of our oxygen and nitrogen in the air without condensing or flying off into Space. Etc etc, all pointing to Earth as a uniquely suited place for Life to originate. But unique in the Universe? As of this writing, NASA reports 4126 confirmed “exo-planets” (planets found beyond our solar system), another 5045 “NASA Candidates”, in 3060 planetary systems. Of these, 161 are “terrestrial” (Earth-like), but our ability to detect things that small at such distances is still very rudimentary. So today for us to think we are “alone” in the Universe is about as valid as someone in 20000BCE sitting on an island, thinking that their community was alone on Earth: there are well over 161 nations now around the Earth. Other than the Corona Virus and its cousins (who by the way number many orders of magnitude more than humans!) few have tried to come over and eat us. Yet. And based on numbers and democratic principles one could argue that we are the genocidal interlopers, and the virus families still the true owners of Earth.
Where exactly did life originate?
We do not know. As far as we can guess, the first life-forms formed in the ocean, wherever liquid water was found. Did it originate at one point by Divine Creation and propagate throughout the planet like the Corona virus? How? Or did lifeforms drop down all over, riding fragments of comets? Or did Life just originate more or less simultaneously, by processes unknown, when the physical, chemical and electrical conditions were just right? Or did that happen by Divine Creation?
Animal life started in the sea around 700 to 600 BCE. Sharks were already present in the oceans before 400 million BCE [2]. So the Matsya Avatara (Fish Incarnation of MahAVishnu) fits two important facts: (a) that the first well-formed life-forms were fish and (b) they lived in the ocean, the fabled abode of MahA Vishnu.
Eventually amphibian creatures formed, (370 million BCE), spending part of their time on land. Some 330 million BCE the first vertebrate land animals were seen. Reptiles and winged insects propagated around 308 million years ago. But let us not rush into the KUrma (turtle) AvatAra yet; there is something very interesting to come there.
And then creatures formed, that lived on land. Some were stationary (plants and trees). Others could move under their own power: many of these are animals. Some lived and moved over the surface. Some burrowed into the earth. Some flew. Some kept developing in water. Note that dolphins that live in the ocean are clearly very intelligent, compassionate beings. Even towards humans – and some would say, much more than humans!
Pangea and Gondwana
About 500 million years ago the Earth was warmer than it is today. Life had already existed for 3500 million years! The surface plates had clustered into a “Pangea”: a super-continent. Pangea started cracking up and formed into two huge super-continents. One is known as Laurasia, comprised of today’s North America, Europe and much of Asia except for the Indian subcontinent. The other was a massive landmass called Gondwana, comprised of today’s South America, Africa, the Indian subcontinent, Australia and probably Antarctica. Apparently these moved over the planet, with respect to its axis of rotation: thus parts of Gonwana were very frozen-over as they traversed the south polar region before moving further north. Gondwanans experienced “Global Warming” very early! Their ice sheet melted and the climate changed to equatorial in some parts. Antarctic plant forms are still found as fossils.
Gondwana Breaks Up: India Joins Asia, 55 Million BCE
About 180 million years ago, there was a further breakup. North America left Lauresia, and linked up with South America which left Gondwana. Africa left Gondwana. India left Gondwana circa 90 million BCE and drifted North until it hit (and we mean hit!) the southern side of Asia around 55 million BCE. The collision formed the Himalayas. The term “Gondwana” means “forest where the Gond people live” in the Central Indian (Deccan) Plateau. That is because it is there that fossil evidence of Gondwana was first confirmed.
What caused such a violent collision. which must mean that the Indian subcontinent must have been moving with some rapid, inexorable momentum northwards? Perhaps there was an Asteroid impact somewhere that sent huge seismic shock waves through the molten core of Earth, rearranging the surface plates in cataclysmic fashion. There is evidence of such an impact, though much smaller: The Gulf of Mexico is now believed to the result of such a collision. It occurred much more recently: at a time that approximates the disappearance of the Dinosaurs. We do not know if there was something far, far more powerful, that deformed the whole Earth like a water-filled ball being kicked. Perhaps the evidence is deep under the ocean floor.
Did you see Mt. Kailash rise from the ocean?
Let’s go back to that evolution timeline. The turtle appeared as a species roughly 180 million years ago, as Gondwana was breaking up. So by 90 million BCE, as India left Gondwana on that express northward journey, turtles must have grown pretty advanced in the warm oceans around India. As we speculated above, perhaps there were cataclysmic events accompanying the breakup? This may add some relevance to the beliefs about the KUrma Avatara, the giant sea-turtle Incarnation that came to support the great mountain that was used to stir the oceans?
Moving on, what happened when India hit the southern coast of Asia? The “Saligrama” (or Shaligrama or Salagrama) is a very black object found (among other places) on the bed of the Kali Gandaki river at around 5000 meters (15000 feet) at the foot of Mt. Kailash, now located at the border between Nepal and Tibet. Beyond the mountain is the famous high-altitude lake Manasarovar of ancient lore. The point is, the Saligrama is a marine fossil called “amonite” which became extinct some 65 million years ago, though some date the Salagrama fossils as early as 140 million BCE. How did it end up at such an altitude, so far from the coast? It had to have come from the seabed that got kicked up as the Himalays were thrust upward at the interface between India and Asia. Given their age, the ancient version must have come from the time when India was still attached to Gondwana – but the younger dating of 65 million years is at the older boundary of the India-Asia collision!
So one must wonder how much of the lore regarding the KUrma Avatara, of giant sea-turtles rescuing Life, and mountains spinning and churning the oceans, came from experiences imprinted into the mental circuits of the inhabitants who saw the events of that tumultous epoch. “Interesting times” indeed?
But they could hardly have been humans, or anything like humans! Primates (Plesiadapiformes) appeared around 65 to 55 million BCE, sporting fingernails instead of claws. To me they seem to resemble squirrels more than apes, but what do I know? That would be right around the time to see Mt. Kailash rise from the ocean. Accompanied by earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and floods like we cannot even imagine – but maybe the memory is programmed somewhere in our genes!
Humans who stand and walk on two legs, and have ten fingers on their two arms including thumbs, apparently started appearing about 2 million years ago. That is a very recent occurrence compared to the 4 billion years of Life on Earth. But we will show that the memories of the cataclysmic events, when the Himalayas formed, have not been completely erased.
Humans discovered the uses of fire some 100,000 years ago. They also learned to make and use stone tools. Nothing magical there: today we know that chimpanzees in the forests also make stone tools and employ sophisticated techniques to get food.
Mt. Toba, 73000 BCE
Our ability to reach back in history extends only about that far. Which brings us to one morning on the slopes of the great mountain of Toba (it was called something else then, I am sure), which covered most of modern-day Indonesia. Toba was a Super Volcano. It rose in the center of a huge high plateau. Remember? The Crust of the earth is pretty thin under the ocean. It can develop cracks, especially along the edges of those low-density land-masses that move around. And where that happens, the high-pressure molten stuff from the Mantle pushes up. Where the hot stuff encounters water, flash boiling generates superheated steam under enormous pressures.
Toba was known and feared, as a place where fountains of fire spurted into the sky at night. But that day dawned more spectacular than ever, in the most horror-inspiring way.
That day the sun rose into an orange sky. Black smoke rose from the top of the still snow-capped slopes, as cascades of melting snow, and huge avalanches, came down the mountain. Scalding jets of steam shot up, and the earth rumbled with a deep-throated roar. Animals squealed from the low-frequency sound hammering their sensitive ears, as they raced downhill. The evil smell of sulfur dioxide permeated the place through the forests.
At 9:02 AM (try disproving that..), some 75,000 years before the present, Toba exploded.
In the next article we will discuss how this marked a clear starting point of Indian history, as it diverged from narratives elsewhere.
References
[1] Baumgartner R. J. et al. (2019) “Nano−porous pyrite and organic matter in 3.5-billion-year-old stromatolites record primordial life”, Geologydoi:10.1130/G46365.1
[2]Martin, R. Aidan. “Geologic Time”. ReefQuest. Archived from the original on 2012-01-24. Retrieved 2006-09-09.
Dhmakara, dhamaka 'bellows-blower,blacksmith standing atop the dhmakara 'makara, composite animal' (On the right-front-leg of Varaha in Khajuraho) is the synonym of sthapati who is shown atop the Torana of Sanchi stupa next to the Indus Script hieroglyph /hypertext of joined fish-fins atop a lotus flower.
tAmarasa 'lotus' rebus: tAmra 'copper ayo 'fish' rebus: ayas 'alloy metal' PLUS ' khambhaṛā 'fish-fin' rebus: kammaṭa, kambāra in smithy, mint. coiner, coinage' . Together,Mahavamsa, XXV, 28, calls it ayo-kammata-dvara, "iron studded gate " (of a city); alloymetal mint gateway. The adjacent elephant sculptures signify: karibha, ibha 'elephant' rebus: karba, ib 'iron'. Thus, the Sanchi is a settlement of metal and wood workers.They are from Begram ivory-carver tradition. The Begram ivories show a model of the Sanchi and Bharhut gateways.
Begram ivory model for a gateway.
Bharhut gateway.
തക്ഷകന്takšaγaǹ S. (തക്ഷ് to pare) 1. Carpenter പെരുത്ത വൃക്ഷതക്ഷകന് KR. 2. N. pr. a Nāga, Bhg.തക്ഷന് id.; Tdbh. തച്ചന്. — തക്ഷശിലാഖ്യംപു രം Bhr. Taxila, capital of the Gandhāras. ത്വഷ്ടാവുtvašṭāvụ S. (ത്വക്ഷ് = തക്ഷ്) A carpenter; one of the old Gods, creator, builder (=വിശ്വകര്മ്മാവു Sk.)(Malayalam) தட்டார்பாட்டம்taṭṭār-pāṭṭam , n. < தட் டான்¹ +. Profession tax on goldsmiths; தட்டார் இறுக்கும் அரசிறைவகை. (S. I. I. ii, 117.)தட்டான்¹taṭṭāṉ , n. < தட்டு-. [M. taṭṭān.] Gold or silver smith, one of 18 kuṭimakkaḷ, q. v.; பொற்கொல்லன். (திவா.)(Tamil) त्वष्टृ a carpenter , maker of carriages (=त्/अष्टृ) AV. xii , 3 , 33; " creator of living beings " , the heavenly builder , N. of a god (called सु-क्/ऋत् , -पाण्/इ , -ग्/अभस्ति , -ज्/अनिमन् , स्व्-/अपस् , अप्/असाम् अप्/अस्तम , विश्व्/अ-रूप&c RV. ; maker of divine implements , esp. of इन्द्र's thunderbolt and teacher of the ऋभुs i , iv-vi , xHariv. 12146 f.R. ii , 91 , 12 ; former of the bodies of men and animals , hence called " firstborn " and invoked for the sake of offspring , esp. in the आप्री hymns RV. AV. &c MBh. iv , 1178Hariv. 587 ff.Ragh. vi , 32 ; associated with the similar deities धातृ , सवितृ , प्रजा-पति , पूषन् , and surrounded by divine females [ग्न्/आस् , जन्/अयस् , देव्/आनाम् प्/अत्नीस् ; cf.त्व्/अष्टा-व्/अरूत्री] recipients of his generative energy RV. S3Br. iKa1tyS3r. iii ; supposed author of RV. x , 184 with the epithet गर्भ-पतिRAnukr. ; father of सरण्यू [सु-रेणुHariv. ; स्व-रेणुL. ] whose double twin-children by विवस्वत् [or वायु ? RV. viii , 26 , 21 f.] are यमयमी and the अश्विन्s x , 17 , 1 f.Nir. xii , 10Br2ih. Hariv. 545 ff.VP. ; also father of त्रि-शिरस् or विश्वरूपib. ; overpowered by इन्द्र who recovers the सोम [ RV. iii f. ] concealed by him because इन्द्र had killed his son विश्व-रूपTS. iiS3Br. i , v , xii ; regent of the नक्षत्रचित्राTBr. S3a1n3khGr2. S3a1ntik. VarBr2S. iic , 4 ; of the 5th cycle of Jupiter viii , 23 ; of an eclipse iii , 6 ; त्वष्टुर् आतिथ्यN. of a सामन्A1rshBr. )
5619takṣaṇa n. ʻ cutting, paring ʼ KātyŚr. [√takṣ] Pa. tacchanī -- f. ʻ hatchet ʼ; Pk. tacchaṇa -- n., ˚ṇā -- f. ʻ act of cutting or scraping ʼ; Kal. tēčin ʻ chip ʼ (< *takṣaṇī -- ?); K. tȧchyunu (dat. tȧchinis) m. ʻ wood -- shavings ʼ; Ku. gng. taċhaṇ ʻ cutting (of wood) ʼ; M. tāsṇī f. ʻ act of chipping &c., adze ʼ. Addenda: takṣaṇa -- : Pk. tacchaṇa -- n. ʻ cutting ʼ; Kmd.barg. taċə̃ři ʻ chips (on roof) ʼ GM 22.6.71.
5620tákṣati (3 pl. tákṣati RV.) ʻ forms by cutting, chisels ʼ MBh. [√takṣ] Pa. tacchati ʻ builds ʼ, tacchēti ʻ does woodwork, chips ʼ; Pk. takkhaï, tacchaï, cacchaï, caṁchaï ʻ cuts, scrapes, peels ʼ; Gy. pers. tetchkani ʻ knife ʼ, wel. tax -- ʻ to paint ʼ (?); Dm. taċ -- ʻ to cut ʼ (ċ < IE. k̂s NTS xii 128), Kal. tã̄č -- ; Kho. točhik ʻ to cut with an axe ʼ; Phal. tac̣<-> ʻ to cut, chop, whittle ʼ; Sh. (Lor.) thačoiki ʻ to fashion (wood) ʼ; K. tachun ʻ to shave, pare, scratch ʼ, S. tachaṇu; L. tachaṇ ʻ to scrape ʼ, (Ju.) ʻ to rough hew ʼ, P. tacchṇā, ludh. tacchanā ʻ to hew ʼ; Ku. tāchṇo ʻ to square out ʼ; N. tāchnu ʻ to scrape, peel, chip off ʼ (whence tachuwā ʻ chopped square ʼ, tachārnu ʻ to lop, chop ʼ); B. cã̄chā ʻ to scrape ʼ; Or. tã̄chibā, cã̄chibā, chã̄cibā ʻ to scrape off, clip, peel ʼ; Bhoj. cã̄chal ʻ to smoothe with an adze ʼ; H. cã̄chnā ʻ to scrape up ʼ; G. tāchvũ ʻ to scrape, carve, peel ʼ, M. tāsṇẽ; Si. sahinavā, ha˚ ʻ to cut with an adze ʼ. <-> Kho. troc̣ik ʻ to hew ʼ with "intrusive" r. Addenda: tákṣati: Kmd. taċ -- ʻ to cut, pare, clip ʼ GM 22.6.71; A. cã̄ciba (phonet. sãsibɔ) ʻ to scrape ʼ AFD 216, 217, ʻ to smoothe with an adze ʼ 331.
5621tákṣan (acc. tákṣaṇam RV., takṣāṇam Pāṇ.) m. ʻ carpenter ʼ. [√takṣ] Pk. takkhāṇa -- m., Paš. ar. tac̣an -- kṓr, weg. taṣāˊn, Kal. kaṭ -- tačon, Kho. (Lor.) tačon, Sh. &oarcacute; m., kaṭ -- th˚, K. chān m., chöñü f., P. takhāṇ m., ˚ṇī f., H. takhān m.; Si. sasa ʻ carpenter, wheelwright ʼ < nom. tákṣā. -- With "intrusive" r: Kho. (Lor.) tračon ʻ carpenter ʼ, P. tarkhāṇ m. (→ H. tarkhān m.), WPah. jaun. tarkhāṇ. -- With unexpl. d -- or dh -- (X dāˊru -- ?): S. ḍrakhaṇu m. ʻ carpenter ʼ; L. drakhāṇ, (Ju.) darkhāṇ m. ʻ carpenter ʼ (darkhāṇ pakkhī m. ʻ woodpecker ʼ), mult. dhrikkhāṇ m., dhrikkhaṇī f., awāṇ. dhirkhāṇ m. (CDIAL 5619 to 5621)
Human populations in India SURVIVED the Toba 'super-eruption' 74,000 years ago that plunged the Earth into a decade-long 'volcanic winter' and led to the near-extinction of our species
Experts thought humans outside Africa may not have survived Toba event
Humans are known to have migrated out of Africa into Eurasia before this time
Researchers have found stone tools made before and after the eruption in India
Proves a population of humans that had previously migrated out of Africa successfully endured a decade-long volcanic winter
Humans in India survived the fallout and decade-long 'volcanic winter' from the devastating Toba super-eruption 74,000 years ago, scientists claim.
The devastating natural disaster was so large it plunged Earth into a millennium of cooling and threatened humans with extinction.
Research has now found proof that populations of human survived in India, the first proof humans outside Africa endured the devastating eruption.
Scroll down for video
+5
Stone tools were uncovered (pictured) which coincided with the timing of the Toba event which indicates humans in India were already using Stone Age tools when it erupted and survived the eruption
+5
A previous study from 2014 used computer models to predict the thickness of the ash cloud from Toba across south-west Asia. Pictured, isobars showing the thickness in cm of the ash cloud after the eruption. At the site of Toba the ash cloud was 100cm thick while in India it was around 5cm and in Africa around 0.1cm
The event, which occurred 74,000 years ago on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia, was about 5,000 times larger than the Mount St Helens eruption in the 1980s.
It has long been thought this was followed by a 'volcanic winter' lasting six to 10 years, leading to a 1,000 year-long cooling of the Earth's surface.
However, a study in the journal Nature Communications found that some humans in Asia survived the Toba eruption, and went on to thrive.
Researchers assessed a 80,000 year-long record of rock layers from the Dhaba site in northern India's Middle Son Valley.
Tools made from rock were found which coincide with the timing of the Toba event, indicating humans in India were already using Stone Age tools when it erupted.
The site yielded evidence that use of the tools persisted after the catastrophic event created a decade-long winter - proof that the people who created them survived.
Professor Jagannath Pal, principal investigator from the University of Allahabad in India, said: 'Although Toba ash was first identified in the Son Valley back in the 1980s, until now we did not have associated archaeological evidence, so the Dhaba site fills in a major chronological gap.'
Lead author Professor Chris Clarkson of the University of Queensland added: 'Populations at Dhaba were using stone tools that were similar to the toolkits being used by Homo sapiens in Africa at the same time.
'The fact that these toolkits did not disappear at the time of the Toba super-eruption or change dramatically soon after indicates that human populations survived the so-called catastrophe and continued to create tools to modify their environments.'
Pictured, the Dhaba site, overlooking the Middle Son Valley, India. The archaeological trench can be seen on the left of the photo. The geological record found tool-using populations persisted after the Toba eruption, indicating humans survived the so-called disaster
Previous theories suggested the eruption would have led to major catastrophes and the collapse of hominin populations around the world.
Hominins are members of the human family tree more closely related to one another than to apes.
Today, only one species of this group remains - Homo sapiens, to which everyone on Earth belongs.
But at the time of Toba's cataclysmic eruption, Neanderthals and Denisovans still existed, with perhaps other as-yet-undiscovered hominin species.
Homo sapiens in Africa are thought to have survived the fallout from the eruption due to the formation of sophisticated social, symbolic and economic strategies.
Eventually, the human population in Africa had recovered enough to begin migrating out of Africa and across Eurasia before 60,000 years ago.
+5
The eruption, which occurred 74,000 years ago on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia, was about 5,000 times larger than the Mount St Helens eruption in the 1980s
WHAT WAS THE TOBA CATASTROPHE?
The Toba super-eruption was the biggest volcanic blast on Earth within the past 2.5 million years.
It blew its top on what is now the Indonesian island of Sumatra around 74,000 years ago.
The volcano fired out some 720 cubic miles (3,000 cubic km) of rock and ash which spread across the globe.
Some scientists believe the eruption blotted out the sky, bringing with it a volcanic winter that lasted a decade.
+5
The event was so massive all that is left of the mountain is the enormous Lake Toba (pictured), which stretches 62 miles (100 kilometres) long, 19 miles (30 km) wide, and up to 1,657 feet (505 metres) deep
An eruption a hundred times smaller than Mount Toba - that of Mount Tambora, also in Indonesia, in 1815 - is thought to have brought a year without summer in 1816.
Toba's eruption devastated life on Earth because its thick cloud of ash blocked out the sun, killing off much of the planet's plantlife.
The event was so massive all that is left of the mountain is the enormous Lake Toba, which stretches 62 miles (100 kilometres) long, 19 miles (30 km) wide, and up to 1,657 feet (505 metres) deep.
Pictured, the Dhaba site, overlooking the Middle Son Valley, India. The archaeological trench can be seen on the left of the photo. The geological record found tool-using populations persisted after the Toba eruption, indicating humans survived the so-called disaster Previous theories suggested the eruption would have led to major catastrophes and the collapse of hominin populations around the world. Hominins are members of the human family tree more closely related to one another than to apes. Today, only one species of this group remains - Homo sapiens, to which everyone on Earth belongs. But at the time of Toba's cataclysmic eruption, Neanderthals and Denisovans still existed, with perhaps other as-yet-undiscovered hominin species. Homo sapiens in Africa are thought to have survived the fallout from the eruption due to the formation of sophisticated social, symbolic and economic strategies. Eventually, the human population in Africa had recovered enough to begin migrating out of Africa and across Eurasia before 60,000 years ago. The eruption, which occurred 74,000 years ago on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia, was about 5,000 times larger than the Mount St Helens eruption in the 1980s +5 The eruption, which occurred 74,000 years ago on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia, was about 5,000 times larger than the Mount St Helens eruption in the 1980s WHAT WAS THE TOBA CATASTROPHE? The Toba super-eruption was the biggest volcanic blast on Earth within the past 2.5 million years. It blew its top on what is now the Indonesian island of Sumatra around 74,000 years ago. The volcano fired out some 720 cubic miles (3,000 cubic km) of rock and ash which spread across the globe. Some scientists believe the eruption blotted out the sky, bringing with it a volcanic winter that lasted a decade. The event was so massive all that is left of the mountain is the enormous Lake Toba (pictured), which stretches 62 miles (100 kilometres) long, 19 miles (30 km) wide, and up to 1,657 feet (505 metres) deep +5 The event was so massive all that is left of the mountain is the enormous Lake Toba (pictured), which stretches 62 miles (100 kilometres) long, 19 miles (30 km) wide, and up to 1,657 feet (505 metres) deep An eruption a hundred times smaller than Mount Toba - that of Mount Tambora, also in Indonesia, in 1815 - is thought to have brought a year without summer in 1816. Toba's eruption devastated life on Earth because its thick cloud of ash blocked out the sun, killing off much of the planet's plantlife. The event was so massive all that is left of the mountain is the enormous Lake Toba, which stretches 62 miles (100 kilometres) long, 19 miles (30 km) wide, and up to 1,657 feet (505 metres) deep.
Pictured, the Dhaba site, overlooking the Middle Son Valley, India. The archaeological trench can be seen on the left of the photo. The geological record found tool-using populations persisted after the Toba eruption, indicating humans survived the so-called disaster
Previous theories suggested the eruption would have led to major catastrophes and the collapse of hominin populations around the world.
Hominins are members of the human family tree more closely related to one another than to apes.
Today, only one species of this group remains - Homo sapiens, to which everyone on Earth belongs.
But at the time of Toba's cataclysmic eruption, Neanderthals and Denisovans still existed, with perhaps other as-yet-undiscovered hominin species.
Homo sapiens in Africa are thought to have survived the fallout from the eruption due to the formation of sophisticated social, symbolic and economic strategies.
Eventually, the human population in Africa had recovered enough to begin migrating out of Africa and across Eurasia before 60,000 years ago.
+5
The eruption, which occurred 74,000 years ago on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia, was about 5,000 times larger than the Mount St Helens eruption in the 1980s
WHAT WAS THE TOBA CATASTROPHE?
The Toba super-eruption was the biggest volcanic blast on Earth within the past 2.5 million years.
It blew its top on what is now the Indonesian island of Sumatra around 74,000 years ago.
The volcano fired out some 720 cubic miles (3,000 cubic km) of rock and ash which spread across the globe.
Some scientists believe the eruption blotted out the sky, bringing with it a volcanic winter that lasted a decade.
+5
The event was so massive all that is left of the mountain is the enormous Lake Toba (pictured), which stretches 62 miles (100 kilometres) long, 19 miles (30 km) wide, and up to 1,657 feet (505 metres) deep
An eruption a hundred times smaller than Mount Toba - that of Mount Tambora, also in Indonesia, in 1815 - is thought to have brought a year without summer in 1816.
Toba's eruption devastated life on Earth because its thick cloud of ash blocked out the sun, killing off much of the planet's plantlife.
The event was so massive all that is left of the mountain is the enormous Lake Toba, which stretches 62 miles (100 kilometres) long, 19 miles (30 km) wide, and up to 1,657 feet (505 metres) deep.
India is located at a critical geographic crossroads for understanding the dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa and into Asia and Oceania. Here we report evidence for long-term human occupation, spanning the last ~80 thousand years, at the site of Dhaba in the Middle Son River Valley of Central India. An unchanging stone tool industry is found at Dhaba spanning the Toba eruption of ~74 ka (i.e., the Youngest Toba Tuff, YTT) bracketed between ages of 79.6 ± 3.2 and 65.2 ± 3.1 ka, with the introduction of microlithic technology ~48 ka. The lithic industry from Dhaba strongly resembles stone tool assemblages from the African Middle Stone Age (MSA) and Arabia, and the earliest artefacts from Australia, suggesting that it is likely the product of Homo sapiens as they dispersed eastward out of Africa.
Introduction
India is a focus of intense debate concerning the timing of the arrival of Homo sapiens, the material culture signature of modern human occupation, the nature of replacement of archaic populations, and the impact of the ~74 ka YTT volcanic eruption on hominin populations. While the Indian fossil hominin record is non-existent for this key time period, analysis of mitochondrial DNA of contemporary populations of India indicates that the region was an important geographic stepping stone in the colonisation of Australasia by Homo sapiens1. At the heart of this debate is the issue of whether Homo sapiens arrived in India prior to the YTT event (dated by 40Ar/36Ar to 73.88 ± 0.32 ka1 and 75.0 ± 0.9 ka2)2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 with a non-microlithic African MSA technology comprised of Levallois and point technology10,11,12, or entered the subcontinent around 50–60 ka with Howiesons Poort microlithic technology13. While this debate is pivotal to understanding the archaeological signature of modern humans throughout the region, the reality is that very few sites in India are dated to the crucial time period between 80 and 50 ka, hence reliable evidence with which to test competing hypotheses is scarce. Due to the sparse Pleistocene human skeletal record between Africa and South Asia14,15, the debate over the South Asian record is largely focussed on stone tools and the DNA of modern populations, as well as rare finds such as engraved ostrich egg shell and worked osseous tools from a handful of sites13.
Here we report detailed descriptions of a rich collection of lithic artefacts from the Dhaba locality, situated on the banks of the Middle Son River in Madhya Pradesh, northern India and comprised of three nearby localities (Dhaba 1, 2 and 3)16, together with the associated luminescence age estimates. The Dhaba locality provides a detailed archaeological sequence for the Middle Son Valley in a crucial time range of c.80–40 ka, and is positioned chronologically between the early Middle Palaeolithic/Late Acheulean sites of Patpara, Nakjhar Khurd, Sihawal and Bamburi 1, dated to c.140–>104 ka17,18, and the blade-based ‘Upper Palaeolithic’ technologies recovered from Baghor formation deposits, previously dated from c.39 ka, although the latter age is problematic19,20 (see Supplementary Discussion for more detailed discussion and Supplementary Fig. 8 for site locations). In this study, we report infrared stimulated luminescence (IRSL) ages for potassium-rich feldspar (K-feldspar) grains collected from excavated cultural sequences at Dhaba. We use the IRSL ages to frame chronological changes in lithic technology at this site and to place the evidence within the context of the South Asian Palaeolithic and the dispersal of modern humans more broadly21.
The Dhaba locality is composed of three archaeological excavations (Dhaba 1, 2 and 3) on the north banks of the Son River and west of its confluence with the Rehi River (Figs. 1 and 2)16. Each of the three archaeological excavations consisted of a step trench placed into hill slope sediments (Table 1; Figs. 2 and 3). Dhaba 1 (N 24°29′57.6″, E 82°00′35.0″) was selected as the location of densest Middle Palaeolithic surface artefact concentration, with artefacts visibly eroding from sediments at several points up the slope. Dhaba 2 (N 24°29′55.4″, E 82°00′24.5″) and Dhaba 3 (N 24°29′56.1″, E 82°00′22.5″) were selected for excavation due to the existence of eroding accumulations of Middle Palaeolithic artefacts, and a dense concentration of cryptocrystalline microblade and small flake artefacts higher up the slope at Dhaba 3. Excavations at Dhaba 1 and Dhaba 2 are ~600 and ~900 m west of the Rehi-Son River confluence, respectively. The trenches were excavated into colluvial and alluvial sediments overlying Proterozoic sandstone and shale bedrock of the Vindhyan Supergroup22,23. Substantial deposits of chemically identified YTT are exposed ~700 m to the east of Dhaba: at Ghogara, on the northern bank of the Son River24,25, and in cliff sections on the east bank of the Rehi River26,27,28.
Fig. 1: Archaeological sites mentioned in the text overlaid on a digitial elevation model of the Eurasian and South Asian landmasses at −60-m sea level consistent with MIS3/4.
Topographic and bathymetric data was obtained from GEBCO 2014 Grid, version 20150318, http://www.gebco.net. Top: Archaeological sites associated with modern humans between Africa and Australia dated >50 ka. 1. Panga ya Saidi; 2. Mumba; 3. Porc Epic; 4. Nazlet Khater; 5. Al Wusta; 6. Jubbah; 7. Qafzeh; 8. Skhul; 9. Dhofar; 10. Jebel Faya; 11. Katoati; 12. Mehtakheri; 13. Dhaba; 14. Jwalapuram; 15. Denisova Cave; 16. Tam Pa Ling; 17. Fuyan Cave; 18. Lida Ajer; 19. Madjedbebe. Bottom: Location of key sites in India and modelled routes of dispersal (dashed orange lines and arrows) from west to east, after Field and colleagues21.
a Dhaba 1 profile showing location of IRSL ages and cryptotephra shards. The upper 7.88 m of Dhaba 1a are not shown. Note all glass shards are found at or below the boundary between the yellow-brown clay-rich layer and the overlying light yellowish brown silt layer and are bracketed by ages of 78 and 71 ka. b Dhaba 1 sediment log. c Dhaba 2 sediment log and IRSL ages. d Dhaba 3 sediment log and IRSL ages. Cl = clay, Si = silt, Sa = sand (F, M and C are fine, medium and coarse, respectively), Gr = gravel, mbs = metres below surface. Alphabetial references are to stratigraphic layers. Refer to Supplementary Table 1 for detailed sedimentary descriptions.
The step trenches expose pedogenically altered alluvial sands, silts and clays (Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 1). The tops of the step trenches at Dhaba 1 and 2 are ~16 m above river level. The trench at Dhaba 1 reveals a coarsening-upward sequence of floodplain clays, silts and sands with angular sandstone and shale pebbles, carbonate nodules and rhizoliths. These floodplain sediments overlie angular limestone, sandstone and shale boulders derived from the underlying bedrock (Fig. 3). The trench at Dhaba 2 exposes floodplain clays, silts and sands containing carbonate nodules and a few angular pebbles that overlie shale bedrock. Dhaba 3 is ~1 km west of the Rehi-Son River confluence and consists of a ~3-m-deep trench ~21 m above river level that is dug into the southeastern facing slope of a hill composed of colluvial silts, sands and gravels overlying decomposing sandstone and shale bedrock. The estimated thickness of the colluvial sediments at the top of the hillock is ~5 m. The trench exposes silty sands and pebble gravel with angular sandstone and shale clasts. The hillock is separated from a neighbouring sandstone and shale bedrock ridge, which rises to the west to over 40 m above river level, by south- and southeast-draining gullies that feed into a channel, which, in turn, drains into the Son River. An ~10-m high Holocene terrace composed of sands and silts abuts the north bank of the Son River16,28. This terrace overlies large, angular quartzite boulders that are intermittently exposed for ~100 m along the riverfront. Some of these boulders show the removal of large flakes using hard hammer percussion; possibly for the manufacture of quartzite Acheulean cleavers that have been recovered from some sites in the region.
The Dhaba localities together provide evidence of long-term human occupation spanning the last ~80 thousand years. Occupation spans the Toba eruption and the stone tool industry shows no significant change in technology until the introduction of microlithic technology ~48 ka. The lithic industry from Dhaba strongly resembles Middle Stone Age stone tool assemblages from Africa, Arabia and Australia, here interpreted as the product of Homo sapiens as they dispersed eastward out of Africa.
Results
IRSL chronology
Thirteen sediment samples from the Dhaba locality were dated using a multiple-elevated-temperature post-infrared IRSL (MET-pIRIR) method29, described in Methods below. The oldest ages are for Dhaba 1 (Supplementary Table 2) and are stratigraphically consistent with an upper and lower deposit, which mantle the steep slope. The lower unit has IRSL ages of 78.0 ± 2.9 and 79.6 ± 3.2 ka (Fig. 3a), while the upper unit has IRSL ages of 70.6 ± 3.9 and 65.2 ± 3.1 ka (Supplementary Table 2). Dhaba 2 was deposited between 55.0 ± 2.7 and 37.1 ± 2.1 ka (Fig. 3c), while Dhaba 3 has ages of between 55.1 ± 2.4 and 26.9 ± 3.8 ka (Fig. 3d). The Dhaba sequence, therefore, began accumulating just prior to the YTT event, with only a small likelihood of occuring later, taking the age uncertainties into consideration (p-values of <0.08 and <0.15 assuming a true age for the eruption of 73.88 or 75.0 ka, respectively). Sediment deposition continued until close to the time of the Last Glacial Maximum, making this a unique locality in South Asia with an industrial sequence that stretches from before the YTT event to the microlithic transition.
Interestingly, six glass shards were found at Dhaba 1 in deposits dated to between 79.6 ± 3.2 and 65.2 ± 3.1 ka (Fig. 3a, see Supplementary Note 1 and Supplementary Table 4), which is consistent with the known date of the YTT event and the widespread presence of YTT in India and the Middle Son Valley2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,30. However, we cannot rule out contamination by human agency as a possible source of these few shards at Dhaba 1, given the presence of thick YTT deposits at nearby sites that were visited by some of the same researchers.
Stone artefacts
The stone artefact sequence at the three Dhaba excavations spans 55 thousand years, from about 80 to 25 ka, with several distinct pulses in artefact discard (Supplementary Table 1). The sequence is characterised by three major technological phases (Table 1).
The Dhaba 1 assemblage accumulated between around 80 and 65 ka, and contains a predominantly recurrent Levallois core assemblage that includes centripetal, bidirectional and unidirectional recurrent Levallois cores, Levallois flakes, Levallois points, Levallois blades, notches and scrapers (Fig. 4, Supplementary Figs. 5, 7); these tools are made almost exclusively on chert, mudstone and silicified limestone (Fig. 5a). Multiplatform and bidirectional cores and redirecting flakes are also present. Flakes show predominantly strongly radial and weakly radial flake scar patterning, consistent with centripetal core reduction (Fig. 5b, Supplementary Figs. 5, 7). Red ochre is also present in the Dhaba 1 assemblage (Fig. 4f, g).
Fig. 4: Key artefact types at Dhaba from 80 to 25 ka.
a–c Levallois flakes, Dhaba 1 and 2. d, e Levallois blades, Dhaba 1. f, g Ochre, Dhaba 1. h, i Microblade cores, Dhaba 3. j Notched scraper, Dhaba 1. k–m Levallois points, Dhaba 1 and 2. n, o Agate and chert microblades, Dhaba 3. p–s Recurrent Levallois cores, Dhaba 1–3. t, u Backed microliths, Dhaba 3. White arrows indicate scar directions. Black arrows with circles indicate impact points.
Fig. 5: Key raw material and technological changes at Dhaba from 80 to 25 ka (left to right = younger to older).
a Raw material changes as a proportion of all artefacts by stratum (Pearson chi-square = 892.4; N = 9; N = 3512; p = < 0.005). b Changes in proportions of scar patterning for all complete flakes by stratum (Pearson chi-square = 37.02; df = 9; N = 797; p = < 0.005 one-sided). Bidirectional scar patterns originate from the proximal (platform) and distal ends of the core or flake. Proximal scar patterns originate from the proximal/platform end only. Strongly radial scar patterns originate in a centripetal pattern around the margins of the flake or core, while weakly radial scar patterns are those with scars that originate from several points around the flake or core circumference but are too few in number (<4) to determine a strong centripetal pattern. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.
Levallois technology continues to dominate the Dhaba 2 and 3 assemblages between about 55 and 47 ka (strata K and J at Dhaba 3, and strata I to E at Dhaba 2) when artefact deposition peaks. Levallois technology is absent from Dhaba above stratum E, dated to 47.5 ± 2.0 ka. Microlithic technology appears at c.48 ka in stratum D at Dhaba 2 and stratum J in Dhaba 3, with microblades, backed artefacts and unidirectional and bidirectional microblade cores all appearing in these strata (Fig. 4h, i, n, o, t u, Supplementary Fig. 6). Quartz is the dominant raw material throughout this microlithic phase, followed by agate (Fig. 5a). Flakes continue to show predominantly centripetal flake scar patterning until the microlithic change (strata 2D and 3G and 3H), when proximal and bidirectional scar patterning becomes the dominant dorsal morphology (Fig. 5b).
By c.37 ka, artefact discard drops dramatically at Dhaba 2 and 3, and very few microlithic artefacts are found after this time (above strata 3C and 2D). Agate and chalcedony are the most common raw materials throughout this final period of site occupation, and flakes show mainly bidirectional and proximal flaking orientations (Fig. 5b).
The broad changes in the proportions of key types through time shown in Table 1 are statistically significant (Pearson chi-square = 2109; N = 864; p = < 0.0005 one-sided).
Discussion
The luminescence ages of the Dhaba locality contribute a key missing component in the Middle Son valley chronological sequence, as well as a rare glimpse into the nature of technological change in India between about 80 and 24 ka. The sequence closely mirrors that at Jwalapuram in southern India31,32,33, showing a change from recurrent Levallois technology to increasing use of single and multiplatform technology and, then, the manufacture of microlithic assemblages. The technological changes in both the Middle Son and Jurreru River valleys appear to be stepwise and involve broad and statistically significant changes in raw material selection, changing retouch strategies (from scrapers and points to backed artefacts), systematic shifts in core reduction technology, and the introduction of new retouched artefact forms such as backed microliths as Levallois technology disappears31,32. Some overlap between Levallois and microlithic technology is also present at Dhaba, with both microlithic and Levallois technology occurring together in stratum J of Dhaba 3 (48.6 ± 2.7 ka) and stratum E of Dhaba 2 (47.5 ± 2.0 ka). The Dhaba sequence presents stratified assemblages spanning the YTT event, and the transition from Levallois to microlithic industries. Other key sites in India also document gradual changes from the Middle Palaeolithic through to the microlithic, such as Bhimbetka34 and Patne35, though neither of these sites has been well-dated using modern geochronological techniques and are not known to contain any traces of YTT.
We find that the sequence offered by Dhaba further cements the notion that MSA-like technologies were present in India before and after the YTT eruption10,31,36. Lithic technology evolved away from Levallois towards lamellar core reduction systems, and finally saw the introduction of the microlithic (in the form of backed microblades) most likely long after Homo sapiens first appeared in the region31,32.
Recent genetic analyses point to a modern human exit from Africa around 70–52 ka37,38, in which all contemporary non-African peoples branched off from the same ancestral population that left Africa, possibly with minor genetic contributions from an earlier modern human migration wave37,39. Fossil evidence supports earlier dispersals of Homo sapiens, with our species present in Greece and the Levant by 200–185 ka40,41, Arabia by ~85 ka42, China before ~80 ka43 and Southeast Asia by 73–63 ka44, in association with MSA/Middle Palaeolithic technology (where stone artefacts are present). Recent finds from Madjedbebe in northern Australia also document a modern human presence at the eastern end of the ‘southern arc’ dispersal route by 65 ± 6 ka45, indicating that groups of Homo sapiens likely colonised South Asia prior to this time. The strong connections between Aboriginal and South Asian modern human genomes is consistent with dispersal through South Asia1,46,47,48 and admixture with Denisovans somewhere along this route49,50. The presence of centripetal core and retouched point technology—and the absence of microlithic technology—in northern Australia at c.65 ka makes connections to Southeast Asia, India and East Africa much stronger than previously proposed11,42. These technologies co-occur in sites east of Africa dated to between about 100 and 47 ka, suggesting they were likely stepping stones along the southern arc dispersal route11. This hypothesis is further supported by quantitative comparisons of core technologies from along this route that point to technological continuity between Africa and Australia10,11,31. Modern human dispersal out of Africa, and more importantly east of Arabia, must therefore have taken place before ~65 ka, so cultural and fossil evidence from sites dating to this period will be important for future tests of this hypothesis, notwithstanding the fact that population contractions and turnovers may have also occurred. The Dhaba locality serves as an important bridge linking regions with similar archaeology to the east and west.
Methods
Excavation
Dhabas 1–3 were excavated under permit from the Archaeological Survey of India (No. F.1/36/2008-EE). All trenches was excavated simultaneously by several teams in 1 × 1 m pits arranged as step trenches down the slope at each locality. Excavation trenches were placed in areas where artefacts were eroding from the slope in high density. Dhaba 1 was excavated in 4 lower steps and 1a was excavated in 12 upper steps covering a total elevation of 9–22 m above river level. Dhaba 2 was excavated in six steps covering a total elevation of 21–28 m above river level. The Dhaba 3 trench is located 25–30 m above river level and was 18-m long. Each pit was excavated in spits of ~10-cm depth, with levels taken after each spit using a line level. All excavated sediments were passed through a 5 mm sieve and all artefacts recovered. The weight of the matrix removed during excavation was recorded and all finds were placed in clip seal plastic bags and labelled with provenance details.
Artefact analysis
All artefacts were washed and taken to the archaeology laboratory in the Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology at the University of Allahabad for analysis. Each artefact was first classified into technological categories such as core, flake, flaked piece and retouched flake and ascribed typological categories where appropriate. All artefacts were assigned individual specimen numbers, weighed, measured with digital callipers and photographed. All information was entered into a relational database along with detailed provenance information for each artefact. Artefact measurement protocols follow those described in Clarkson et al.31. All cores were scanned in three dimensions using a NextEngine laser scanner and a select set of core measurements taken for each31. Select artefacts were illustrated using conventional archaeological illustration techniques and protocols.
IRSL dating
Sediment samples were collected by hammering opaque plastic tubes (5 cm in diameter) into the cleaned section face. The tubes were removed and wrapped in light-proof plastic for transport to the Luminescence Dating Laboratory at the University of Wollongong. Under dim red laboratory illumination, each sample was treated using standard procedures to extract sand-sized grains of K-feldspar51,52. The samples were routinely treated with solutions of HCl acid and H2O2 to remove carbonates and organic matter, respectively, and then dried. Different grain size fractions in the range of 90–212 µm were obtained by dry sieving, and the K-rich feldspar grains separated using a heavy liquid solution of sodium polytungstate with a density of 2.58 g/cm3. The separated grains were etched using 10% HF acid for ~40 min to clean the surfaces of the grains and reduce the thickness of the alpha-irradiated layer around the grain surface. IRSL measurements of the K-feldspar grains were made on an automated Risø TL-DA-20 reader equipped with IR diodes (875 nm) for stimulation, which delivered ~135 mW/cm2 total power to the sample position53. Irradiations were carried out within the reader using a 90Sr/90Y beta source. The IRSL signals were detected using a photomultiplier tube with the stimulated luminescence passing through a filter pack containing Schott BG-39 and Corning 7–59 filters, which provides a blue transmission window (320–480 nm). Aliquots containing several hundred grains (~5 mm in diameter) were prepared by mounting the grains as a monolayer on a 9.8-mm-diameter aluminium disc using “Silkospray” silicone oil as an adhesive.
The dose rates were determined from field measurements of the gamma dose rate, laboratory measurements of the beta dose rate using the sediment samples recovered from each tube hole, and published estimates of the cosmic-ray dose rate and the internal dose rate (due to 40K and 87Rb contained within the K-feldspar grains). The dosimetry data for all samples are summarised in Supplementary Table 2. The gamma dose rates were measured using an Exploranium GR-320 portable gamma-ray spectrometer, which is equipped with a 3-inch diameter NaI(Tl) crystal calibrated for U, Th and K concentrations using the CSIRO facility at North Ryde. At each sample location, 3–4 measurements of 900 s duration were made of the gamma dose rate at field water content. The external beta dose rate was measured by low-level beta counting using a Risø GM-25-5 multicounter system54 and referenced to the Nussloch Loess (Nussi) standard55. These external components of the total dose rate were adjusted for sample water content, assuming a value of 7 ± 2% for all samples (based on the measured (field) water content of each sample, which ranged from 2 to 5%, and making an allowance for collection of samples during the dry season and partial drying out of the exposed sections prior to sample collection); the assigned uncertainty captures the likely range of time-averaged values for the entire period of sample burial. The minor contribution from cosmic rays was estimated from the burial depth and water content of each sample, and the latitude, longitude and altitude of the Dhaba sites56. The internal dose rate was estimated by assuming 40K and 87Rb concentrations of 13 ± 1% and 400 ± 100 p.p.m., respectively57,58,59.
The MET-pIRIR procedure29,60,61,62 was applied to determine equivalent dose (De) of our samples. The IRSL signals of both regenerative and test doses were measured by increasing the stimulation temperature from 50 to 300 °C in steps of 50 °C. A preheat at 320 °C for 60 s was applied after both regenerative and test doses. At the end of the IRSL measurements for each test dose, a ‘hot’ IR bleach at 325 °C for 100 s was conducted to minimise the residual signal preceding the next measurement cycle. The full experimental procedure is summarised in Supplementary Table 3.
Typical IRSL and MET-pIRIR decay curves and dose response curves (DRCs) for one aliquot of sample Dhab1-OSL4 are shown in Supplementary Fig. 1a, b, respectively. The intensities of the IRSL and MET-pIRIR signals for all the samples are very bright and are on the order of ~105 counts s−1. Different sensitivity-corrected DRCs were observed for the IRSL and various MET-pIRIR signals. These curves were fitted using a single saturating exponential function, which yields characteristic saturation doses of 480, 430, 443, 463, 415 and 308 Gy for the 50, 100, 150, 200, 250 and 300 °C signals, respectively. These results indicate that a natural dose of up to ~800 Gy can be obtained for the Dhaba samples using the MET-pIRIR method.
We tested the applicability of the MET-pIRIR procedure to the Dhaba samples using several routine criteria (e.g., recuperation, recycling ratio, dose recovery, anomalous fading and residual dose)61,62. Tests of the recycling ratio and recuperation (i.e., the ratio between the signal responses from a zero regenerative dose and the natural dose) were investigated based on the construction of DRCs for De estimation. Recycling ratios for all of the samples fell within the range of 1.0 ± 0.1 and recuperation values were mostly <5%, which are considered acceptable.
For the residual dose test, four aliquots from each of nine samples were bleached by a Dr Hönle solar simulator (model UVACUBE 400) for ~4 h. The residual doses associated with the MET-pIRIR signals were then measured; the results for Dhab2-OSL4 are shown in Supplementary Fig. 1c. The IRSL signal at 50 °C has the smallest residual dose (~2 Gy), which increases as the stimulation temperature is raised. A residual dose of ~18 Gy was obtained for the 250 °C signal, and the highest residual dose (~29 Gy) was observed for the 300 °C signal. The residual doses for the 250 °C signal are summarised for each sample in Supplementary Table 2; the size of the residual dose represents 5–10% of the corresponding De value of the 250 °C signal for the Dhaba samples. There is no systematic change in the size of the residual dose with De for our samples, which suggests that the non-bleachable traps associated with the residual signal may have been saturated. A simple subtraction of the residual dose from the apparent De value may result in underestimation of the true De value if the residual signal is relatively large compared with the bleachable signal63. To estimate the proportion of residual signal to bleachable signal for our samples, 12 aliquots of Dhab1-OSL2, Dhab1-OSL3 and Dhab2-OSL1 were heated to 450 °C to empty the source traps associated with the residual and bleachable signals. These aliquots were subsequently given different regenerative doses (165, 330 and 496 Gy) and then bleached using the solar simulator for 4 h before measuring the residual signal using the MET-pIRIR procedure. The measured residual signals from the different regenerative doses were compared with the total regenerative signals at the same doses. The residual signal corresponds to only ~5% of the total signal, which is comparable to the residual dose as a proportion of the measured De. Given the small size of the residual signal relative to the bleachable signal, the simple dose-subtraction approach should give satisfactory results.
We also tested the validity of the dose-subtraction correction and performance of the MET-pIRIR procedure using a dose recovery test. Four aliquots of sample Dhab2-OSL4 were first bleached by the solar simulator for 4 h and then given a dose of 220 Gy, which was measured as an ‘unknown’ dose using the MET-pIRIR procedure. The ratios of measured dose to given dose for the IRSL and MET-pIRIR signals are shown in Supplementary Fig. 1d. After correcting for the residual doses shown in Supplementary Fig. 1c, dose recovery ratios of ~0.9 were obtained for the 50 and 100 °C signals, and ratios of 1.02 ± 0.02, 1.03 ± 0.02, 1.02 ± 0.02 and 1.01 ± 0.03 for the 150, 200, 250 and 300 °C MET-pIRIR signals, respectively. The results of this dose recovery test suggest, therefore, that the combination of MET-pIRIR and simple dose-subtraction procedures can recover a dose consistent with the known dose given to our samples, so we adopted these procedures to estimate the final De values and ages for the Dhaba samples.
Previous studies of pIRIR signals have shown that the anomalous fading rate (g-value) depends on the stimulation temperature, with negligible fading rates observed for MET-pIRIR signals at 200 °C and above29,60,61,62. No fading correction is therefore required for ages estimated from the high-temperature MET-pIRIR signals. To directly test the absence of significant fading for the samples studied here, we conducted anomalous fading tests on K-feldspar grains from samples Dhab2-OSL1 and Dhab3-OSL1 using a single-aliquot measurement procedure similar to that described by Auclair et al.64, but based on the MET-pIRIR measurement procedure in Supplementary Table 3. The g-values calculated for the IRSL and MET-pIRIR signals (Supplementary Fig. 1e) show that the fading rate is highest for the 50 °C IRSL signal (3.2 ± 0.4 and 4.1 ± 0.7% per decade for Dhab2-OSL1 and Dhab3-OSL1, respectively) and decreases as the stimulation temperature is raised. The fading rates for the 200 °C signal are <1% per decade and are consistent with zero for the signals measured at 250 and 300 °C, suggesting that negligible fading or non-fading is achieved at the two highest stimulation temperatures.
Based on the above performance tests, the MET-pIRIR procedure was used to measure the De values for all samples. The De values obtained for each of the MET-pIRIR signals are plotted against stimulation temperature (De–T plots) for each of the samples from Dhaba 1, 2 and 3 in Supplementary Figs. 2–4, respectively. We also applied a fading correction65 to the De values based on the g-values in Fig. 1e. The fading-corrected De values are shown as red squares in Supplementary Figs. 2–4. After applying the fading correction, the fading-corrected De values for the 150 and 200 °C signals are consistent with those obtained at higher temperatures (>200 °C), which have negligible fading rates. This further supports our proposition that the MET-pIRIR procedure can access a non-fading signal for the samples studied here and, hence, the De values and ages obtained from the elevated temperature signals should be reliable. More importantly, since the signals measured at different temperatures are bleached at significantly different rates (Supplementary Fig. 1c), the consistency in De values across a wide range of stimulation temperatures (i.e., 150–300 °C) indicates that our samples had been sufficiently bleached prior to deposition. At lower stimulation temperatures (50 and 100 °C), the De values are underestimated, even after correcting for fading, which is consistent with the dose underestimation observed at 50 and 100 °C in the dose recovery test (Supplementary Fig. 1d).
Given the much lower residual dose of the 250 °C signal compared with the 300 °C signal (Supplementary Fig. 1c), we consider the De values obtained using the 250 °C signal as the most reliable for the Dhaba samples. The final ages were, therefore, based on the De values and associated uncertainties estimated from the 250 °C MET-pIRIR signal (Supplementary Table 2).
All relevant data used in this paper are available from the authors. Soil and IRSL dating samples are held in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Wollongong, Australia, and in the Department of Archaeology at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Germany. All stone artefacts are held in the Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology at the University of Allahabad, India. The source data underlying Fig. 5 are provided as a Source Data file.
References
1.
Atkinson, Q. D., Gray, R. D. & Drummond, A. J. mtDNA variation predicts population size in humans and reveals a major Southern Asian chapter in human prehistory. Mol. Biol. Evolution25, 468–474 (2007).
Storey, M., Roberts, R. G. & Saidin, M. Astronomically calibrated 40Ar/39Ar age for the Toba supereruption and global synchronization of late Quaternary records. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA109, 18684–18688 (2012).
Mark, D. F. et al. A high-precision 40Ar/39Ar age for the Young Toba Tuff and dating of ultra-distal tephra: forcing of Quaternary climate and implications for hominin occupation of India. Quat. Geochronol.21, 90–103 (2014).
Acharyya, S. K. & Basu, P. K. Toba ash on the Indian subcontinent and its implications for correlation of Late Pleistocene alluvium. Quat. Res.40, 10–19 (1993).
Pearce, N. J. et al. Individual glass shard trace element analyses confirm that all known Toba tephra reported from India is from the c. 75‐ka Youngest Toba eruption. J. Quat. Sci.29, 729–734 (2014).
Pearce, N. J., Westgate, J. A., Gualda, G. A., Gatti, E. & Muhammad, R. F. Tephra glass chemistry provides storage and discharge details of five magma reservoirs which fed the 75 ka Youngest Toba Tuff eruption, northern Sumatra. J. Quaternary Sci. 256–271 (2019).
10.
Petraglia, M. et al. Middle Paleolithic assemblages from the Indian subcontinent before and after the Toba super-eruption. Science317, 114–116 (2007).
Mellars, P., Gori, K. C., Carr, M., Soares, P. A. & Richards, M. B. Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southern Asia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA110, 10699–10704 (2013).
Haslam, M. et al. Dhaba: an initial report on an Acheulean, Middle Palaeolithic and microlithic locality in the Middle Son Valley, north-central India. Quat. Int.258, 191–199 (2012).
Shipton, C. et al. Generativity, hierarchical action and recursion in the technology of the Acheulean to Middle Palaeolithic transition: a perspective from Patpara, the Son Valley, India. J. Hum. Evolution65, 93–108 (2013).
Jones, S. C. & Pal, J. N. The Palaeolithic of the Middle Son valley, north-central India: changes in hominin lithic technology and behaviour during the Upper Pleistocene. J. Anthropological Archaeol.28, 323–341 (2009).
Petraglia, M. D., Ditchfield, P., Jones, S., Korisettar, R. & Pal, J. N. The Toba volcanic super-eruption, environmental change, and hominin occupation history in India over the last 140,000 years. Quat. Int.258, 119–134 (2012).
Field, J. S., Petraglia, M. D. & Lahr, M. M. The southern dispersal hypothesis and the South Asian archaeological record: examination of dispersal routes through GIS analysis. J. Anthropological Archaeol.26, 88–108 (2007).
Ray, J. S., Veizer, J. & Davis, W. J. C, O, Sr and Pb isotope systematics of carbonate sequences of the Vindhyan Supergroup, India: age, diagenesis, correlations and implications for global events. Precambrian Res.121, 103–140 (2003).
Korisettar, R. in The Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia 69–96 (Springer, Dordrecht, 2007).
24.
Jones, S. C. Palaeoenvironmental response to the ∼74 ka Toba ash-fall in the Jurreru and Middle Son valleys in southern and north-central India. Quat. Res.73, 336–350 (2010).
Gatti, E., Durant, A. J., Gibbard, P. L. & Oppenheimer, C. Youngest Toba Tuff in the Son Valley, India: a weak and discontinuous stratigraphic marker. Quat. Sci. Rev.30, 3925–3934 (2011).
Lewis, L., Ditchfield, P., Pal, J. N. & Petraglia, M. Grain size distribution analysis of sediments containing Younger Toba tephra from Ghoghara, Middle Son valley, India. Quat. Int.258, 180–190 (2012).
Neudorf, C. M., Roberts, R. G. & Jacobs, Z. Assessing the time of final deposition of Youngest Toba Tuff deposits in the Middle Son Valley, northern India. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol.399, 127–139 (2014a).
Neudorf, C. M., Roberts, R. G. & Jacobs, Z. Testing a model of alluvial deposition in the Middle Son Valley, Madhya Pradesh, India—IRSL dating of terraced alluvial sediments and implications for archaeological surveys and palaeoclimatic reconstructions. Quat. Sci. Rev.89, 56–69 (2014b).
Li, B. & Li, S. H. Luminescence dating of K-feldspar from sediments: a protocol without anomalous fading correction. Quat. Geochronol.6, 468–479 (2011).
Clarkson, C., Jones, S. & Harris, C. Continuity and change in the lithic industries of the Jurreru Valley, India, before and after the Toba eruption. Quat. Int.258, 165–179 (2012).
Clarkson, C., Petraglia, M., Harris, C., Shipton, C. & Norman, K. in Lithic Technological Organization and Paleoenvironmental Change 37–61 (Springer, Cham, 2018).
33.
Petraglia, M. et al. Population increase and environmental deterioration correspond with microlithic innovations in South Asia ca. 35,000 years ago. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA106, 12261–12266 (2009).
Misra, V. N. Prehistoric Culture Sequence of Bhimbetka. Pre-historic Man and His Art in Central India, Pune, 10–16 (1970).
35.
Sali, S. A. The Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Cultures of Maharashtra (Deccan College, Pune, 1989).
36.
Blinkhorn, J. & Petraglia, M. D. Environments and cultural change in the Indian Subcontinent: implications for the dispersal of Homo sapiens in the Late Pleistocene. Curr. Anthropol.58(S17), S463–S479 (2017).
Mondal, M., Casals, F., Majumder, P. P. & Bertranpetit, J. Further confirmation for unknown archaic ancestry in Andaman and South Asia. bioRxivhttps://doi.org/10.1101/071175 (2016).
47.
Rasmussen, M. et al. An Aboriginal Australian genome reveals separate human dispersals into Asia. Science334, 94–98 (2011).
Aitken, M. J. An Introduction to Optical Dating (Oxford University Press, 1998).
53.
Bøtter-Jensen, L., Andersen, C. E., Duller, G. A. T. & Murray, A. S. Developments in radiation, stimulation and observation facilities in luminescence measurements. Radiat. Meas.37, 535–541 (2003).
Bøtter-Jensen, L. & Mejdahl, V. Assessment of beta dose-rate using a GM multicounter system. Int. J. Radiat. Appl. Instrum. Part D. Nucl. Tracks Radiat. Meas.14, 187–191 (1988).
Jacobs, Z. & Roberts, R. G. An improved single grain OSL chronology for the sedimentary deposits from Diepkloof Rockshelter, Western Cape, South Africa. J. Archaeological Sci.63, 175–192 (2015).
Prescott, J. R. & Hutton, J. T. Cosmic-ray contributions to dose-rates for luminescence and ESR dating—large depths and long-term time variations. Radiat. Meas.23, 497–500 (1994).
Huntley, D. J. & Baril, M. R. The K content of the K-feldspars being measured in optical dating or in thermoluminescence dating. Anc. TL15, 11–13 (1997).
Li, B., Jacobs, Z., Roberts, R. G. & Li, S.-H. Review and assessment of the potential of post-IR IRSL dating methods to circumvent the problem of anomalous fading in feldspar luminescence. Geochronometria41, 178–201 (2014).
Roberts, R. G. et al. Optical dating in archaeology: thirty years in retrospect and grand challenges for the future. J. Archaeological Sci.56, 41–60 (2015).
Li, B., Roberts, R. G. & Jacobs, Z. On the dose dependency of the bleachable and non-bleachable components of IRSL from K-feldspar: improved procedures for luminescence dating of Quaternary sediments. Quat. Geochronol.17, 1–13 (2013).
Huntley, D. J. & Lamothe, M. Ubiquity of anomalous fading in K-feldspars and the measurement and correction for it in optical dating. Can. J. Earth Sci.38, 1093–1106 (2001).
We thank the Archaeological Survey of India for permission to conduct the fieldwork, the American Institute of Indian Studies for facilitating this research, and the international team for their contributions to the excavations, especially M. Haslam, A. Crowther and J. Bora. We thank K. Douka for providing comments on a draft of this paper and L. Lewis for conducting cryptotephra lab work. This research was supported by grants from the British Academy (M.P., N.B.), the Leverhulme Trust (M.P., N.B.), the University of Wollongong (B.L.), the European Research Council (M.P.); the Australian Research Council (B.L., C.C., R.G.R.); the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research (M.P., M. Haslam); and the Max Planck Society (N.B., M.P.).
Author information
Affiliations
School of Social Science, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia
Chris Clarkson
, Clair Harris
, Nicole Boivin
& Michael Petraglia
Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia
Chris Clarkson
, Bo Li
, Richard G. Roberts
& Kasih Norman
Department of Archaeology, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Kahlaische Strasse 10, Jena, 07745, Germany
Chris Clarkson
, Nicole Boivin
& Michael Petraglia
Centre for Archaeological Science, School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia
Bo Li
& Richard G. Roberts
Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada, 89512, USA
Christina M. Neudorf
Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Place Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3EN, UK
Christine Lane
Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, 211 002, Uttar Pradesh, India
Jagannath Pal
, M. C. Gupta
& D. P. Mishra
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3ER, UK
Sacha Jones
Office of Scholarly Communication, Cambridge University Library, West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9DR, UK
Sacha Jones
Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, Australian National University, College of Asia and the Pacific, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia
Ceri Shipton
Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai, 600 005, India
Jinu Koshy
Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India
A. K. Dubey
Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 20560, USA
Nicole Boivin
& Michael Petraglia
Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
Nicole Boivin
Contributions
J.P., M.P., N.B. and C.C. designed the study. J.P., M.P., C.C., C.H., C.S., J.K., M.C.G., D.P.M., A.K.D. and C.M.N. conducted the fieldwork. C.C., K.N., S.J., B.L., R.G.R. and C.L. wrote the paper. C.C., M.P., N.B. and R.G.R. obtained funding for the study. C.M.N. performed sedimentary analyses. B.L. and R.G.R. carried out IRSL dating. C.L. performed cryptotephra analyses. C.C., C.S. and C.H. analysed the lithic assemblage. C.C., K.N., C.M.N., L.B. and C.H. produced the figures.
Excavations at Jwalapuram near Chennai had also proved survival of human or other specie post Toba.Also Atthirambakkam, near Kanchipuram in Southern India also gave stone tools used by the settlements of that time.Phloroscent technique gave the antiquity of those tools to be around 1.8 million years.This throws back the history of settlements in INdian subcontinent much earlier than hitherto claimed.To find corroborative evidence in the forms of fossils more efforts should be made.
kuṭi 'water-carrier' rebus: kuṭhi 'smelter'. muka 'ladle' (Tamil)(DEDR 4887) Rebus: mū̃h 'ingot', quantity of metal got out of a smelter furnace (Santali).Sign 328 baṭa 'rimless pot' rebus: baṭa 'iron' bhaṭa 'furnace'. The hypertext reads: mū̃hbhaṭa 'ingot furnace'
Sign 373. Sign 373 has the shape of oval or lozenge is the shape of a bun ingot. mũhã̄ = the quantity of iron produced atone time in a native smelting furnace of the Kolhes; iron produced by the Kolhes and formed like a four-cornered piece a little pointed at each end; mūhā mẽṛhẽt = iron smelted by the Kolhes andformed into an equilateral lump a little pointed at each of four ends; kolhe tehen mẽṛhẽt komūhā akata = the Kolhes have to-day produced pig iron (Santali). Thus, Sign 373 signifies word, mũhã̄ 'bun ingot'.
khuram. ʻhoofʼ KātyŚr̥. 2. *khuḍa --1(khuḍaka -- ,khula° ʻ ankle -- bone ʼ Suśr.). [← Drav. T. Burrow BSOAS xii 376: it belongs to the word -- group ʻ heel <-> ankle -- knee -- wrist ʼ, see *kuṭṭha-- ]1. Pa.khura -- m. ʻ hoof ʼ, Pk.khura -- m. (chura -- afterkhura -- ~chura -- <kṣurá-- ); Ash.kū˘r ʻ hoof, foot ʼ,kurkāˊ ʻ heel ʼ; Kt.kyur ʻ foot ʼ,kyurkəté ʻ heel ʼ; Gambkr ʻ hoof, foot ʼ, Niṅg.xūr, Woṭ.khuru, (Kaţārkalā)khur; Dm.khur ʻ foot ʼ; Paš. lauṛ.khurīˊ f. ʻ hoof, heel ʼ (→ Par.khurīˊ ʻ heel ʼ IIFL i 265), kuṛ.xūr ʻ foot ʼ, dar.kurī ʻ heel ʼ, nir.xurī; Shum.xurem ʻ my foot ʼ,xurigyem ʻ my heel ʼ; Gaw. Kal.khur ʻ foot ʼ; Bshk.khur m. ʻ foot ʼ (khin ʻ heel ʼ, Gaw.khunīk, Sv.khunike Xpíṇḍa-- or <khuriṇī-- AO xviii 240); Tor.khū ʻ foot ʼ, Mai.khur, ky.khor, Phal.khur m.; Sh. gil.khūrṷ m. ʻ hoof ʼ,khūri̯ f. ʻ heel ʼ, koh.khōrṷ m. ʻ hoof ʼ, jij.khuri ʻ heel ʼ (koh.thŭri, pales.thurī ʻ heel ʼ X *thuḍḍatiʻ kicks ʼ?); K.khor m. ʻ foot (esp. human) ʼ,khōr m. ʻ foot of any living being ʼ,khūru m. ʻ leg of a bed &c. ʼ,khūrü f. ʻ heel ʼ, kash.khōr ʻ foot ʼ, rām. pog.khur; S.khuru m. ʻ hoof ʼ; L.khurā m. ʻ foot track ʼ,°rī f. ʻ heel ʼ, awāṇ.khur ʻ hoof ʼ; P.khur m. ʻ hoof ʼ,°rā m. ʻ hoof -- print ʼ,°rī f. ʻ small hoof, heel of shoe ʼ,°rṛā m. ʻ divided hoof, its print ʼ; WPah. bhal. pāḍ.khur m. ʻ foot ʼ; Ku. N.khur ʻ hoof ʼ; A.khurā ʻ hoof, leg of table or stool ʼ; B.khur ʻ hoof ʼ,°rā ʻ foot of bedstead ʼ; Or.khura ʻ hoof, foot ʼ,°rā ʻ hoof, leg ʼ; Mth.khūr,khurī ʻ hoof ʼ, Bhoj.khur; H.khur m. ʻ hoof ʼ,°rā m. ʻ heel of shoe ʼ,°rī f. ʻ hoof, heel of slipper, hoof -- print ʼ; G.khur f. ʻ heel ʼ,kharī f. ʻ hoof ʼ; M.khū˘r m. ʻ hoof, foot of bed ʼ,khurī f. ʻ forepart of hoof ʼ,°rā m.,°rẽ n. ʻ heel of shoe ʼ (khurũdaḷṇẽ ʻ to trample ʼ X *kṣundati?); Ko.khūru m. ʻ hoof ʼ, Si.kuraya.2. Pk.khuluha -- m. ʻ ankle ʼ; Gy. wel.xur̄,xur m. ʻ hoof ʼ; S.khuṛī f. ʻ heel ʼ; WPah. paṅ.khūṛ ʻ foot ʼ.khuriṇī -- ; *khuraghāta -- , *khurapāśa -- , *khuramr̥ttikā -- ; *catuṣkhura-- .Addenda:khura -- : WPah.kṭg. (kc.)khūˊr m. ʻ hoof ʼ, J. G.khur m. Ta. kuracu, kuraccai horse's hoof. Ka. gorasu, gorase, gorise, gorusu hoof. Te. gorija, gorise, (B. also) gorije, korije id. / Cf. Skt. khura- id.; Turner, CDIAL, no. 3906. (DEDR 1770)
Sign 342 kanda kanka 'rim of jar' कार्णिक 'relating to the ear' rebus: kanda kanka 'fire-trench account, karṇika 'scribe, account' karṇī'supercargo',कर्णिक helmsman'. Thus, the composite hypertext of Sign 15 reads: kuṭhi karṇika 'smelter helmsman/scribe/supercargo'.
Field symbol: barad, barat'ox' rebus: bharat, baran 'mixed alloys' (5 copper, 4 zinc and 1 tin) PLUS pattar 'feeding-trough' Rebus: pattar 'goldsmith guild'.
kolmo 'three' Rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge' arka 'twelve' Rebus: arka 'gold, copper'
Hypertext of Sign 267 is composed of rhombus/oval/bun-ingot shape and signifier of 'corner' hieroglyph. The hypertext reads: mũhã̄ 'bun ingot' PLUS kanac 'corner' rebus: kañcu 'bell-metal'. Sign 267 is oval=shape variant, rhombus-shape of a bun ingot. Like Sign 373, this sign also signifies mũhã̄ 'bun ingot' PLUS kanac 'corner' rebus: kancu 'bell-metal'.kaṁsá1 m. ʻ metal cup ʼ AV., m.n. ʻ bell -- metal ʼ Pat. as in S., but would in Pa. Pk. and most NIA. lggs. collide with kāˊṁsya -- to which L. P. testify and under which the remaining forms for the metal are listed. 2. *kaṁsikā -- .1. Pa. kaṁsa -- m. ʻ bronze dish ʼ; S. kañjho m. ʻ bellmetal ʼ; A. kã̄h ʻ gong ʼ; Or. kãsā ʻ big pot of bell -- metal ʼ; OMarw. kāso (= kã̄ -- ?) m. ʻ bell -- metal tray for food, food ʼ; G. kã̄sā m. pl. ʻ cymbals ʼ; -- perh. Woṭ. kasṓṭ m. ʻ metal pot ʼ Buddruss Woṭ 109.2. Pk. kaṁsiā -- f. ʻ a kind of musical instrument ʼ; A. kã̄hi ʻ bell -- metal dish ʼ; G. kã̄śī f. ʻ bell -- metal cymbal ʼ, kã̄śiyɔ m. ʻ open bellmetal pan ʼ. (CDIAL 2756) PLUS sal 'splinter' rebus: sal 'workshop'
ayo 'fish' rebus: ayas 'alloy metal' ays 'iron' PLUS khambhaṛā 'fish fin rebus: Ta. kampaṭṭam coinage, coin. Ma. kammaṭṭam, kammiṭṭam coinage, mint. Ka. kammaṭa id.; kammaṭi a coiner (DEDR 1236) Thus, ayo kammaṭa, 'alloymetal mint'
Sign 65 is a hypertext composed ofSign 59 and 'lid of pot' hieroglyph.Sign 134 ayo 'fish' rebus: ayas 'alloy metal' ays 'iron' PLUS dhakka 'lid of pot' rebus: dhakka 'bright' Thus, ayo dhakka, 'bright alloy metal.' Thus, Sign 65 hypertext reads: ayo dhakka 'bright alloy metal'
Sign 373. Sign 373 has the shape of oval or lozenge is the shape of a bun ingot. mũhã̄ = the quantity of iron produced atone time in a native smelting furnace of the Kolhes; iron produced by the Kolhes and formed like a four-cornered piece a little pointed at each end; mūhā mẽṛhẽt = iron smelted by the Kolhes andformed into an equilateral lump a little pointed at each of four ends; kolhe tehen mẽṛhẽt komūhā akata = the Kolhes have to-day produced pig iron (Santali). Thus, Sign 373 signifies word, mũhã̄ 'bun ingot'. PLUS kanac 'corner' Rebus: kancu 'bell-metal'
Bharat, name of a nation. Root: bharatiyo 'caster of metals', bharat 'metal alloy' in Indus Script http://tinyurl.com/k58uysu
Variants of Sign 48 Seal published by Omananda Saraswati. In Pl. 275: Omananda Saraswati 1975. Ancient Seals of Haryana (in Hindi). Rohtak.This pictorial motif gets normalized in Indus writing system as a hieroglyph sign: baraḍo = spine; backbone (Tulu)
Sign 48 is a 'backbone, spine' hieroglyph: baraḍo = spine; backbone (Tulu) Rebus: baran, bharat ‘mixed alloys’ (5 copper, 4 zinc and 1 tin) (Punjabi) Tir. mar -- kaṇḍḗ ʻ back (of the body) ʼ; S. kaṇḍo m. ʻ back ʼ, L. kaṇḍ f., kaṇḍā m. ʻ backbone ʼ, awāṇ. kaṇḍ, °ḍī ʻ back ʼH. kã̄ṭā m. ʻ spine ʼ, G. kã̄ṭɔ m., M. kã̄ṭā m.; Pk. kaṁḍa -- m. ʻ backbone ʼ.(CDIAL 2670) Rebus: kaṇḍ ‘fire-altar’ (Santali) bharatiyo = a caster of metals; a brazier; bharatar, bharatal, bharataḷ = moulded; an article made in a mould; bharata = casting metals in moulds; bharavum = to fill in; to put in; to pour into (Gujarati) bhart = a mixed metal of copper and lead; bhartīyā = a brazier, worker in metal; bhaṭ, bhrāṣṭra = oven, furnace (Sanskrit. )baran, bharat ‘mixed alloys’ (5 copper, 4 zinc and 1 tin) (Punjabi)
kuṭi 'water-carrier' rebus: kuṭhi 'smelter' PLUS Sign 342 kanda kanka 'rim of jar' कार्णिक 'relating to the ear' rebus: kanda kanka 'fire-trench account, karṇika 'scribe, account' karṇī'supercargo',कर्णिक helmsman'. Thus, the composite hypertext of Sign 15 reads: kuṭhi karṇika 'smelter helmsman/scribe/supercargo'.
kuṭi 'water-carrier' rebus: kuṭhi 'smelter' PLUS Sign 342 kanda kanka 'rim of jar' कार्णिक 'relating to the ear' rebus: kanda kanka 'fire-trench account, karṇika 'scribe, account' karṇī'supercargo',कर्णिक helmsman'. Thus, the composite hypertext of Sign 15 reads: kuṭhi karṇika 'smelter helmsman/scribe/supercargo'.
kuṭi 'water-carrier' rebus: kuṭhi 'smelter' PLUS Sign 342 kanda kanka 'rim of jar' कार्णिक 'relating to the ear' rebus: kanda kanka 'fire-trench account, karṇika 'scribe, account' karṇī'supercargo',कर्णिक helmsman'. Thus, the composite hypertext of Sign 15 reads: kuṭhi karṇika 'smelter helmsman/scribe/supercargo'.
kuṭi 'water-carrier' rebus: kuṭhi 'smelter'.
mēḍha 'The polar star'. rebus: mẽṛhẽt, meḍ 'iron' (Mu.Ho.Santali) PLUS dula 'two' Rebus: dul 'metal casting'
kuṭi 'water-carrier' rebus: kuṭhi 'smelter' PLUS Sign 342 kanda kanka 'rim of jar' कार्णिक 'relating to the ear' rebus: kanda kanka 'fire-trench account, karṇika 'scribe, account' karṇī'supercargo',कर्णिक helmsman'. Thus, the composite hypertext of Sign 15 reads: kuṭhi karṇika 'smelter helmsman/scribe/supercargo'.kor̤u 'sprout' Rebus: kor̤u 'bar of metal' Sign 389 is a composite hypertext composed of Sign 169 infixed in 'oval/lozenge/rhombus' hieoglyph Sign 373. Sign 373 has the shape of oval or lozenge is the shape of a bun ingot. mũhã̄ = the quantity of iron produced atone time in a native smelting furnace of the Kolhes; iron produced by the Kolhes and formed like a four-cornered piece a little pointed at each end; mūhā mẽṛhẽt = iron smelted by the Kolhes andformed into an equilateral lump a little pointed at each of four ends; kolhe tehen mẽṛhẽt komūhā akata = the Kolhes have to-day produced pig iron (Santali). Thus, Sign 373 signifies word, mũhã̄ 'bun ingot'.
Sign 342 kanda kanka 'rim of jar' कार्णिक 'relating to the ear' rebus: kanda kanka 'fire-trench account, karṇika 'scribe, account' karṇī'supercargo',कर्णिक helmsman'. Thus, the composite hypertext of Sign 15 reads: kuṭhi karṇika 'smelter helmsman/scribe/supercargo'.
13639 skambhá1 m. ʻ prop, pillar ʼ RV. 2. ʻ *pit ʼ (semant. cf. kūˊpa -- 1). [√skambh]1. Pa. khambha -- m. ʻ prop ʼ; Pk. khaṁbha -- m. ʻ post, pillar ʼ; Pr. iškyöp, üšköb ʻ bridge ʼ NTS xv 251; L. (Ju.) khabbā m., mult. khambbā m. ʻ stake forming fulcrum for oar ʼ; P. khambh, khambhā, khammhā m. ʻ wooden prop, post ʼ; WPah.bhal. kham m. ʻ a part of the yoke of a plough ʼ, (Joshi)khāmbā m. ʻ beam, pier ʼ; Ku. khāmo ʻ a support ʼ, gng. khām ʻ pillar (of wood or bricks) ʼ; N. khã̄bo ʻ pillar, post ʼ, B. khām, khāmbā; Or. khamba ʻ post, stake ʼ; Bi. khāmā ʻ post of brick -- crushing machine ʼ, khāmhī ʻ support of betel -- cage roof ʼ, khamhiyā ʻ wooden pillar supporting roof ʼ; Mth. khāmh,khāmhī ʻ pillar, post ʼ, khamhā ʻ rudder -- post ʼ; Bhoj. khambhā ʻ pillar ʼ, khambhiyā ʻ prop ʼ; OAw. khāṁbhe m. pl. ʻ pillars ʼ, lakh. khambhā; H. khāmm. ʻ post, pillar, mast ʼ, khambh f. ʻ pillar, pole ʼ; G. khām m. ʻ pillar ʼ, khã̄bhi, °bi f. ʻ post ʼ, M. khã̄b m., Ko. khāmbho, °bo, Si. kap (< *kab); -- Xgambhīra -- , sthāṇú -- , sthūˊṇā -- qq.v.2. K. khambürü f. ʻ hollow left in a heap of grain when some is removed ʼ; Or. khamā ʻ long pit, hole in the earth ʼ, khamiā ʻ small hole ʼ; Marw. khã̄baṛoʻ hole ʼ; G. khã̄bhũ n. ʻ pit for sweepings and manure ʼ. Garh. khambu ʻ pillar ʼ.Rebus: kampaṭṭam coinage, coin. Ma.kammaṭṭam, kammiṭṭam coinage, mint. Ka.kammaṭa id.; kammaṭi a coiner. (DEDR 1236)
kor̤u 'sprout' Rebus: kor̤u 'bar of metal'
Sign 99 is sal 'splinter' rebus: sal 'workshop'
'notch' hierogglyph: खांडा [ khāṇḍā ] m A jag, notch, or indentation (as upon the edge of a tool or weapon). (Marathi) Rebus: khāṇḍā 'tools, pots and pans, metal-ware'.
ayo 'fish' rebus: ayas 'alloy metal' ays 'iron' PLUS khambhaṛā 'fish fin rebus: Ta. kampaṭṭam coinage, coin. Ma. kammaṭṭam, kammiṭṭam coinage, mint. Ka. kammaṭa id.; kammaṭi a coiner (DEDR 1236) Thus, ayo kammaṭa, 'alloymetal mint'
Sign 211 'arrow' hieroglyph: kaṇḍa ‘arrow’ (Skt.) H. kãḍerā m. ʻ a caste of bow -- and arrow -- makers (CDIAL 3024). Or. kāṇḍa, kã̄ṛ ʻstalk, arrow ʼ(CDIAL 3023). ayaskāṇḍa ‘a quantity of iron, excellent iron’ (Pāṇ.gaṇ) Thus ciphertext kaṇḍa ‘arrow’ is rebus hypertext kāṇḍa 'excellent iron', khāṇḍā 'tools, pots and pans, metal-ware'.
Field symbol: पोळ [pōḷa], 'zebu' Rebus: magnetite, ferrite ore'
maĩd ʻrude harrow or clod breakerʼ (Marathi) rebus: mẽṛhẽt, meḍ 'iron' PLUS dula 'duplicate' Rebus: dul 'metal casting'
kolmo 'three' Rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge' PLUS sal 'splinter' Rebus: sal 'workshop'
khaṇḍa 'division' Rebus: khaṇḍa 'implements'
eraka 'nave of wheel' rebus: eraka 'moltencast, copper' arā 'spoke' rebus: āra 'brass'. رخ ṯs̱arḵẖ, āre 'potters wheel' rebus: arka 'gold, gold', eraka 'metal infusion' PLUS sal 'splinter', cāl 'furrow' rebus: sal 'workshop'. PLUS sal 'splinter' rebus: sal 'workshop'. Thus, arka sal 'gold, metal infusion workshop' PLUS manḍa 'arbour, canopy' Rebus: mã̄ḍ ʻarray of instruments'.
Sign 342 kanda kanka 'rim of jar' कार्णिक 'relating to the ear' rebus: kanda kanka 'fire-trench account, karṇika 'scribe, account' karṇī'supercargo',कर्णिक helmsman'. Thus, the composite hypertext of Sign 15 reads: kuṭhi karṇika 'smelter helmsman/scribe/supercargo'.
ayo 'fish' rebus: ayas 'alloy metal' ays 'iron' PLUS khambhaṛā 'fish fin rebus: Ta. kampaṭṭam coinage, coin. Ma. kammaṭṭam, kammiṭṭam coinage, mint. Ka. kammaṭa id.; kammaṭi a coiner (DEDR 1236) Thus, ayo kammaṭa, 'alloymetal mint'
Sign 347 is duplicated Sign 162: dula 'duplicated,, pair' rebus: dul 'metal casting' kolmo 'rice plant' rebus: kolami 'smithy, forge. Vikalpa: pajhaṛ = to sprout from a root (Santali); Rebus: pasra ‘smithy, forge’ (Santali). The hypertext Sign 347 reads: dul kolami 'metal casting smithy, forge'eraka 'nave of wheel' rebus: eraka 'moltencast, copper' arā 'spoke' rebus: āra 'brass'. رخ ṯs̱arḵẖ, āre 'potters wheel' rebus: arka 'gold, gold', eraka 'metal infusion' PLUS sal 'splinter', cāl 'furrow' rebus: sal 'workshop'.
Sign 343 kanda kanka 'rim of jar' कार्णिक 'relating to the ear' rebus: kanda kanka 'fire-trench account, karṇika 'scribe, account' karṇī'supercargo',कर्णिक helmsman' PLUS खांडा [ khāṇḍā ] m A jag, notch, or indentation (as upon the edge of a tool or weapon). (Marathi) Rebus: khāṇḍā 'tools, pots and pans, metal-ware'. Thus, khāṇḍākarṇī'metalware supercargo'.
Sign 86 koḍa 'one' Rebus: koḍ 'iron workshop'.
kolmo 'three' Rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge' PLUSSign 373. Sign 373 has the shape of oval or lozenge is the shape of a bun ingot. mũhã̄ = the quantity of iron produced atone time in a native smelting furnace of the Kolhes; iron produced by the Kolhes and formed like a four-cornered piece a little pointed at each end; mūhā mẽṛhẽt = iron smelted by the Kolhes andformed into an equilateral lump a little pointed at each of four ends; kolhe tehen mẽṛhẽt komūhā akata = the Kolhes have to-day produced pig iron (Santali). Thus, Sign 373 signifies word, mũhã̄ 'bun ingot'.
Sign 211 'arrow' hieroglyph: kaṇḍa ‘arrow’ (Skt.) H. kãḍerā m. ʻ a caste of bow -- and arrow -- makers (CDIAL 3024). Or. kāṇḍa, kã̄ṛ ʻstalk, arrow ʼ(CDIAL 3023). ayaskāṇḍa ‘a quantity of iron, excellent iron’ (Pāṇ.gaṇ) Thus ciphertext kaṇḍa ‘arrow’ is rebus hypertext kāṇḍa 'excellent iron', khāṇḍā 'tools, pots and pans, metal-ware'.
eraka 'nave of wheel' rebus: eraka 'moltencast, copper' arā 'spoke' rebus: āra 'brass'. رخ ṯs̱arḵẖ, āre 'potters wheel' rebus: arka 'gold, gold', eraka 'metal infusion' PLUS sal 'splinter', cāl 'furrow' rebus: sal 'workshop'.
Sign 287 'curve' hieroglyph and 'angle' hieroglyph (as seen on lozenge/rhombus/ovalshaped hieroglyphs). The basic orthograph of Sign 287 is signifiedby the semantics of: kuṭila ‘bent’ CDIAL 3230 kuṭi— in cmpd. ‘curve’, kuṭika— ‘bent’ MBh. Rebus: kuṭila, katthīl = bronze (8 parts copper and 2 parts tin) cf. āra-kūṭa, 'brass' Old English ār 'brass, copper, bronze' Old Norse eir 'brass, copper', German ehern 'brassy, bronzen'. kastīra n. ʻ tin ʼ lex. 2. *kastilla -- .1. H. kathīr m. ʻ tin, pewter ʼ; G. kathīr n. ʻ pewter ʼ.2. H. (Bhoj.?) kathīl, °lā m. ʻ tin, pewter ʼ; M. kathīl n. ʻ tin ʼ, kathlẽ n. ʻ large tin vessel ʼ.(CDIAL 2984) कौटिलिकः kauṭilikḥ कौटिलिकः 1 A hunter.-2 A blacksmith. Sign 293 may be seen as a ligature of Sign 287 PLUS 'corner' signifier: Thus, kanac 'corner' rebus: kañcu 'bell-metal'.kaṁsá 1 m. ʻmetal cup ʼ AV., m.n. ʻ bell -- metalʼ PLUS kuṭila 'curve' rebus: kuṭila 'bronze/pewter' (Pewter is an alloy that is a variant brass alloy). The reading of Sign 293 is: kanackuṭila 'pewter'.
dula 'two' rebus: dul 'metal casting'
Sign 342 kanda kanka 'rim of jar' कार्णिक 'relating to the ear' rebus: kanda kanka 'fire-trench account, karṇika 'scribe, account' karṇī'supercargo',कर्णिक helmsman'. Thus, the composite hypertext of Sign 15 reads: kuṭhi karṇika 'smelter helmsman/scribe/supercargo'.
kanda 'pot, jar' rebus: khaṇḍa 'implements'. kanka, karṇika 'rim of jar'rebus: karṇī 'supercargo, scribe'
muka 'ladle' (Tamil)(DEDR 4887) Rebus: mū̃h 'ingot', quantity of metal got out of a smelter furnace (Santali).Sign 328 baṭa 'rimless pot' rebus: baṭa 'iron' bhaṭa 'furnace'. The hypertext reads: mū̃hbhaṭa 'ingot furnace'
eraka 'nave of wheel' rebus: eraka 'moltencast, copper' arā 'spoke' rebus: āra 'brass'. رخ ṯs̱arḵẖ, āre 'potters wheel' rebus: arka 'gold, gold', eraka 'metal infusion' PLUS sal 'splinter', cāl 'furrow' rebus: sal 'workshop'.
ranku 'liquid measure' (Santal8i) Rebus: ranku 'tin' (Santali) rango 'pewter'. ranga, rang pewter is an alloy of tin, lead, and antimony (anjana) (Santali).
raṅga3 n. ʻ tin ʼ lex. [Cf. nāga -- 2, vaṅga -- 1] Pk. raṁga -- n. ʻ tin ʼ; P. rã̄g f., rã̄gā m. ʻ pewter, tin ʼ (← H.); Ku. rāṅ ʻ tin, solder ʼ, gng. rã̄k; N. rāṅ, rāṅo ʻ tin, solder ʼ, A. B. rāṅ; Or. rāṅga ʻ tin ʼ, rāṅgā ʻ solder, spelter ʼ, Bi. Mth. rã̄gā, OAw. rāṁga; H. rã̄g f., rã̄gā m. ʻ tin, pewter ʼ; Si. ran̆ga ʻ tin ʼ.(CDIAL 10562) B. rāṅ(g)tā ʻ tinsel, copper -- foil ʼ.(CDIAL 10567)
Kankyo Daizen's fertilizer wins over farmers in Vietnam and Cambodia
TORU OTSUKI, Nikkei staff writer
Kankyo Daizen sells its liquid fertilizer, Tsuchi Ikikaeru ("soil comes back to life") in five countries, including Vietnam and Cambodia. The company, which also makes organic deodorizers, makes the fertilizer from cow urine collected from dairy farmers in Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japan's main islands, where the company is located.
Cow urine, which is often dumped into rivers or sprayed over farmland, contaminates water sources and has an offensive smell. Kankyo Daizen has turned this nuisance into a valuable resource for Hokkaido farmers. Now the natural soil conditioner is winning new customers abroad.
Farmland in much of Southeast Asia faces degradation and declining fertility -- the result of years of overuse of agrochemicals. In 2012, Kankyo Daizen began exporting Tsuchi Ikikaeru to agricultural producers in such countries as Vietnam through two Japanese trading houses.
The company estimates that its overall sales rose 11% to 230 million yen ($2.13 million) for the 12 months ended January. Its overseas business has grown and now accounts for 10% of total revenue, as it has expanded its sales channels.
"Southeast Asia has a young and growing population," Kankyo Daizen President Makoto Kubonouchi said. "It is a promising market as long as we can meet registration requirements in different countries."
Kankyo Daizen's environmentally friendly liquid fertilizer is making inroads in Vietnam and elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
Growing incomes in Southeast Asia have spurred interest in more natural farming practices in the region. Kankyo Daizen's organic fertilizer, for example, is a good substitute for conventional agrochemicals. The company says the product, which is diluted with water when applied, is an effective growth booster for a wide range of crops including rice, vegetables, flowering plants and farmed shrimp. It also helps maintain soil fertility when the same crop is grown on the same plot of land year after year.
Kankyo Daizen also plans to sell Tsuchi Ikikaeru in Malaysia and the Philippines, but it is not limiting its ambitions to Asia. In February, Kubonouchi traveled to Brazil as part of a research tour organized by the Japan International Cooperation Agency, inspecting large farms growing crops such as soybeans and sugar cane. The company plans to explore market opportunities there after receiving a positive response from local farmers. One challenge to overcome is the shipping cost, given the distance between Japan and Brazil.
In Japan, the company works with a number of dairy farmers in Kitami and areas along the Sea of Okhotsk. The manufacturing process starts by fermenting cow urine using a special mix of microbes. The liquid is collected in a tanker truck and then fermented some more in six 18-ton tanks at Kankyo Daizen's headquarters. The company believes lactic acid bacteria and yeast grown with cow urine inhibit the growth of harmful bacteria in the soil.
Kankyo Daizen sells 50 products in all, including a clear, colorless liquid designed to eliminate household odors. The fertilizer and the deodorizer look different but the bacteria that they contain work the same way. The company provided the deodorant free of charge to evacuation shelters and temporary toilets in areas hit by recent earthquakes in northern Japan.
Kankyo Daizen verified the effectiveness of its cow urine-derived products in tests conducted at the Kitami Institute of Technology. But mysteries remain, including how the active ingredient forms through fermentation and how it reduces odors and increases soil fertility. The company plans to work with a private research group to solve these puzzles.
To seep in the real Balinese experience, I suggest, do check out my blog Bali: A touristic pilgrimage before continung with this one if you haven’t already. This post is more a laundry list of tourist destinations and my experience there in.
How many days in Bali: Minimum five I’d say . We spent 7 full days in Bali in the first trip and managed to get a holistic experience but it wasn’t the most relaxed trip (none of my trips are for that matter)
Things to do: Temples and more temples and a beach or two – that was my priority. In beaches, we covered Sanur, Nusa Penida, Pandawa (first trip) and Kuta (second trip)
Where to stay : We spent a few nights in Ubud as a base to cover temples and a couple of nights in Sanur to cover Nusa Penida and another night deep south in Nusa Dua to do Pandawa beach, Garuda Wisnu and Uluwatu temple. In the second trip, we stayed in Ubud and Kuta.
Here’s a good reference map. Ubud is pretty much centrally located in Bali (small red circle). No beaches but surrounded by rice farms, forests and temples. Few days there is a must. For beaches you have multple options to chose from (Well, Bali is an island) . Kuta is very touristy but fun. Sanur and Nusa Dua area much quieter but not as hep. Nusa Penida is a separate island to the west of Bali, ravishingly beautiful, usually done as day trip from near Sanur. But people do spend weeks there to. Northern beaches are also good I hear but no personal experience.
Now the details
There is something for everyone in Bali. Our interest being temples, we tried to cover most major temples of Bali, about ~12 of those. Each was unique in identity and in structure, while being breathtakingly picturesque and divinely peaceful even in the crowd. In one day 3-4 places can be covered. The distances are significant, hence covering 3-4 places will take all day.
North east and east Bali (Blue circle):
1. Besakih – This is the largest Hindu temple complex in Indonesia. Situated on the slopes of Mt Agung – an active volcano, this is also called the Mother of all temples. The main temple is dedicated to Shiva. Around it are 23 other temples. Prominent amongst them are temples to Vishnu and Ishvara. Rest are caste and community specific. . Among the other prominent ones are te It is one of the oldest and the most sacred temples for Balinese Hindus. Surrounding it are temples for Visnu, for Ishwara (Shiva), for Brahma, along with smaller community specific temples. It is believed the “neev” of this temple was laid by Rishi Markandeya by implanting Panca Dhatu (five elements) at the foot of Mt Agung – on the slopes of which the temple stands.
2. Lempuyang – This temple is in the far east, and pretty famous amongst tourist for the “Gateway to Heaven” picture. The location on the slope of Mt Lempuyang, the backdrop of the beautiful split temple gate coupled with a photography trick gives this absolutely fantabulous ‘Gateway to Heaven” picture. Google it . We didn’t queue up for the picture. Even then, the temple area is worth a visit for the beautiful views around. The temple which we visited (and the one which most tourists do, is only one of the other 6/7 temples around) . Given the location, some hotels have made a good business of ‘photo ops”. Works well for tourists as well as for business 😃 Most tours do not cover Lempuyang. You will have to ask for it specifically. And be ready for an early start.
3. Tirta Empul (The holy water spring) : Tirta Empul is like our own “teerthas” which as aurspicious “kshetras” usually on riverbanks or around natural springs and such water bodies, where pilgrims go to cleanse their atmas and get the blessing of the almighty. These places are said to have energy centres that promote spiritual well being of the visitors. Tirta Empul temple, constructed over a 1000 years ago, is the seat of Vishnu and Shiva, Vishnu being the adhishtra . Shivji is in his Linga form and Vishnuji has a vigrah (mounted altar). A natural spring has been oozing out forever from ground in the temple complex (rather the temple has ben built around the spring). The local Balinese rever the spring as the holy spring (literally Tirta Empul in Balinese) and consider its water as the life sustaining Amrit . Water from this spring is routed to spouts into the purification (bathing) pool . Every spout has a specific significance in terms of impact. The devotee goes from spout to spout praying and dunking his head under the oozing water, letting the amrit purify his soul and help in resolving unresolved issues. Tourists can take in this experience too. For that, one needs to get dressed in a special ritual Sarong available in the premise for IDR 10K. We happily complied. The whole ritual is an experience worth having and feels like redemption, especially after the heat has gotten the better of you. Totally must do!
4. Gunung Kawi – This was an interesting spot. While there is a temple dedicated to Lord Vasuki , the main attraction are the 10 huge rock cut Candis dedicated to 11th century Balinese royalty. It is more like a temple for “pitrus” than a memorial to the dead. The surroundings of Gunung Kawi are even more spectacular. The lush green rice fields, the translucent springs and waterfalls dotting the mountain charm your heart like few things can. The best part was meeting a bunch of kids who let us film them performing the Tri Sandhya prarthana.
5. Tirtha Gangga: Tirta Gangga has a beautiful garden with small water ponds. There are also a couple of swimming pools for tourists and locals. Its no doubt a pretty place, but if in rush, keep this optional.
North west and west Bali route (Purple circle)
6. Ulun Danu Beratun – This is a beautiful Shaivite temple complex on the shores of Lake Bratan. There is also a temple dedicated to Ganpati. The day we want it seemed as if “jan sailab” had descended on the temple. The lake, the temple complex and the points for photo ops all a sight to behold. The drive to Ulun Danu up the gentle slope is also really beautiful.
7. Taman Ayun: A key feature of Taman Ayun is that it is a family temple of one of Bali’s royal families, the erstwhile Mengwi Kingdom. The temple is surrounded by water ponds which act like reservoirs for irrigating water to the farms around. Do not miss the video of the royal family and the history of Taman Ayun, gives a good insight into the lives of the Balineses. In the complex, there is a huge murti of Devi Annapurna indicating the importance of th goddess in this largely agrarian society.
8. Pura Tanah Lot – Amongst the best of the lot, Tanah Lot is a divinely beautiful rock cut temple dedicated to Shiva and Varuna on the western coast of Bali. The name literally means Land in the Sea. It is said to be constructed by Shaivite Balinese Rishi Nirartha in the 15th century. One can spend hours at Tanah Lot . It stirs in a way I can’t describe. People also visit this place to get a view of the sun set into the sea. It is magical to say the least.
Central Bali – Around Ubud
9. Ubud palace, Pura Saraswati (Ubud) – Ubud is said to be the place where Rishi Markendaya first meditated on coming to Bali. The Ubud palace temple is said to be consecrated by the Rishi himself. One can spend days in Ubud. Its a lovely townlet with cafes, restaurants, Yoga studios, art studios and massage parlours.
10. Monkey forest – Located in Ubud, this is not exactly a regular temple but a sanctury of monkeys – called ‘wanar wena’ in Balinse that also houses an old Shiva temple. The forest enshrines the Hindu principle of Jiva Daya and Balinese Hindu concept of Tri haat hata karana -> harmony between humans, harmony between man and prakriti and harmony between humans and the supreme God. Don’t skip this visit when in Ubud – the monkeys are absolute darlings and totally entertaining.
11. Goa Gajah : Dating back to the 9th century, this cave temple houses 3 shiv lingas and a Ganpati. Inside the cave one cannot miss the power and vibe of Shiva. Its a quick visit and very close to Ubud.
South Bali (Orange circle)
9. Garuda Wisnu Kencana: Garuda, the eagle like bird in the Hindu scriptures, the ride of Lord Visnu is an omnipresent figure in Indonesia let alone Bali. Garuda Wisnu Kencana, a theme park is a dedication to the Lorn Vishnu and his Wahana. The art, the sculptures, the performances and movie show depict the story of birth of Garuda and how he became Vishnu’s vahana. The GWK park MUST be on the list of things to do. It is an outstanding example of fusing culture with entertainment. The tall and magnificient Garuda Vishnu statue is an iconic feature of Bali that welcomes the tourists from afar as soon as one lands.
10.Uluwatu temple – Uluwatu is another extremely scenic Hindu temple perched on a cliff over looking sapphire blue waters of the Indian ocean. The key feature of Uluwatu is the traditional ‘Kecak’ dance depicting the story of Ramayana. Kechak is an old Balinese art form akin to acapella. There is music but no musical instruments. The dancers are accompanied by 50+ male performers who keep chanting/singing “chak chak chak” . Doing “chak chak” for an hour at a strecth requires some lung strength. It rings in your ears much after the performance ends. The Balinese hanuman is a lot of more naughty than our own hanumanji. He is the highlight of the performance. A must must watch when in Bali
Beaches Nusa Penida: A ravishingly beautiful island to the west of Bali, Nusa Penida can be done as a day trip from Sanur. Ferries leave at around 8 AM from Sanur and 4 PM from Nusa Penida. Of course, a day trip allows a mere glimpse of this natural wonder. There are places to stay overnight that beach-o-philes could explore. A friend spent 10 days only in Nusa Penida and she says she would do it again.
Kuta: Kuta doesn’t feel like the rest of Bali at all. It has a vibe of Phuket. Chaotic, busy, touristy with restaurants, bars, discos – you name it. But one thing is guaranteed, you won’t get bored in Kuta. There’s just so much going on. For exploring South Bali, Kuta is a good base. Also helps that the airport is only 20 minutes away. Kuta beach is nice – nothing like the beauties of Nusa Penida, but nice nevertheless.
Sanur: Sanur on the western coast is quieter than Kuta and has some nice homestays. It’s a convenient place to get a ferry to Nusa Penida. That notwithstanding I would pick Kuta.
Pandawa beach: This beach on the southern shore of Bali, is not as well known as Kuta, Sanur or Canggu, hence much cleaner and less busy. The reason I added to my list is not for the beach per se, but to see the statues of the five Pandawas and Kunti Mata in caves carved out on the hill-face along the beach. Cultural pride does a peek-a-boo from every nook and corner of Bali. How ro preserve and showcase Hindu heritage is an art that Indians need to learn from Bali.
These are only the beaches I went to. Bali being an island, has so many more on all sides. In fact, there are so many other destinations which I have not had a chance to visit in West and North Bali, the rather less explored areas of Bali. If you are the “off-beat” kinds and have days to spare, you might want to add these regions to the your list.
On the closing note – a photo of Bhai and Ms Luwak, the cat that shits coffee. A coffee tasting tour is another “to-do” things suggested by many tour guides. We weren’t too enthused by idea nonetheless, the pretiiness of Ms Luwak notwithstanding 😀
After 2 trips within a span of 2 months, I can confidently say – No one can have enough of Bali – there is something for everyone. For me it was a pilgrimage of sorts. I await her calling!
Om Swastyastu!
Om Shanti Shanti Shantihi !!!
Published by Ami Ganatra
My space to scribble travel experiences, thoughts on Dharma, Spirituality and Yoga, reviews of books and/or anything that inspires me at that point in time. Om Shanti! View all posts by Ami Ganatra
I went to Bali as a tourist but came back a pilgrim – deeply touched, spiritually alive and feeling blessed. So overwhelmed I was that in a span of two months I visited Bali twice, the second time mainly to relive the temple experience. All that you may have heard about its the sprawling beaches and exotic resorts is true. But even then, Bali is essentially a temple town. And Balinese are deeply religious (Dharmic is a better word but has not parallel in English), wearing their Hindu-ness proudly. As people of a Dharma that is inclusive and accepting “the other” like none other and propunding piety towards all living creatures as well as the nature around, why shouldn’t they!
Bali’s cultural confidence strikes you the minute you touch-down. After landing and before entering the airport building look right opposite. A huge image of Bhagvan Vishnu on his Garuda stands with a divinely poise, at a distance, towering the “bhu-loka”; as if comforting the visitor that she was going to be safe, satisfied and sound in this sacred land. HE will be there always, watching over! The name “Bali” comes from the sanskrit word bali (small a) which means offerings. Thus, Bali is the land of offerings, the land of gratitude.
This magnificent piece of art is at the Garuda Wisnu Kecana park in South Bali, not too far from the airport – a must do when in Bali. The other shocker (or surpriser) happens once you are out of the airport heading to wherever your destination is. If you are not asleep already, you can’t miss this exemplary sculpture at the next chauraha – the name displayed in bold says Gatotkaca park. You read that right, the statue of the young but mighty Ghatotkacha, the son of Bhima, taking on Karna in the battlefield of Kurukshetra. My head was literally spinning – there was a huge statue dedicated to Ghatotkacha in Bali – positioned in a way no one could miss. While in my own country India – the cradle of Hindu civilzation – there was none of that scale and grandeur, that I can think of. This was the first such sculpture of the many others adorning various chaurahas of Bali. Sample some in the images below.
As you find your way around Bali, few things will stand out. At the entrance of every home, hotel, restaurant – one finds murtis of Ganeshji watching over the place and the people around. Murtis of Saraswati devi – the goddess of learning and wisdom are also common. All schools and many homes I came across had either murtis or images of the Goddess.
Almost every house, every homestay, every shop has an elaborate temple with usually five “vigrahas” – similar to pillar mounted shrines or covered altars dedicated to – Hyan Sang Vidhi (The ultimate divinity we call Brahman, conceptualised as the unity of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva), Saraswati, Ishwara (typically Shiva but could be Vishnu per family beliefs), family diety overseeing the temple space and one empty vigrah for Pitrus (ancestors) who bless the homes with their presence on specific days. The vigrahas, unlike temples in India, rarely have murtis but hold carved images of the deity on metal sheets, colored in gold or bright colors. The vigraha for pitrus is empty and is kept closed.
Temples with distinct black roofed altars/vigrahas and split gateways – candi Bentar – are all around. Most are private, such as family temples, community temples and villages temples. Then there are public temples open to all Balinese Hindus and even tourists. Temples such as Besakih, Tanah Lot, Uluwatu etc. which feature in the “Must see” lists of Bali Guide books are some of the public temples.
The people of Bali are very mindful of preserving the sanctity of their tradition. Hence, while they do treat tourists extremely well given the subsistence on tourism, not everyone is allowed in every temple. Even public temples only certain areas are accessible to tourists, that too only after donning a Sarong. Sarongs are provided for free at the entrance of the temples. The garbh grihas (or the inner sanctum) is reserved only for Balinese Hindus. No exception is made for Indian Hindus either. However, if the intention of a non-Balinese Hindu is genuine worship and she is willing to follow the dressing and worshipping ritual of the Balinese, she may be allowed in.
The temple discipline is sacrosanct for the Balinese. One evening, our driver had to attend a family festivity which involved worship in a family temple. All day he was with us in the usual trousers and shirt. But he made it a point to change into the traditonal attire before heading home. Even kids are traditionally dressed for temple visits. No exceptions made. Not from one Balinese did I hear any discomfort with this “rule” this. It was understood and accepted by all. I remember one wise Balinese mention – to preserve the culture we must follow the practices, there is no other way. P.S. It’s much easier to enter Balinese Hindu temples in Jakarta as long as one is a Hindu. Ofcourse, Sarong is a must.
A key concept of Balinese Hinduism is Tri-hata-karana, which akin to the vedic concept of Bandhuta propounding connectedness of all things in nature, preaches harmonious living, Tri-hata-karana specifically talks about establishing three types of harmony, amongst Humanity & Divinity, Humans & Humans and Humanity & Enviroment. These three symbolically imply the three vyavahartis uttered during the Shanti mantra – Swarga-lok, bhuva-loka and bhu-loka respectively (from ॐ भूर्भुवः स्वः).
The people of Bali manifest this harmony in their everyday routine. For instance, as a part of the worship ritual, offerings are made to all deities three times a day. Offerings are made in small baskets made by stitching leaves together. These are called Canang sari (chanag sari). Offerings consits of varigated flowers and naivedya of cooked rice. You will see canang saris everywhere in Bali – in front of shops, homes, shrines, on roads, markets – just everywhere. The idea of naivedya enshrines the principle of harmony with nature – the rice is for the ants and other insects on the ground – a beautiful gesture of “Bhuta-daya” . A regular morning sight in Bali is of men and women dressed in traditional attires carrying big baskets of canang sari enroute to the local temples for prayers or praying in their own home temples. The picture below is of my homestay hostess diong her morning ritual.
Our homestay hostess doing her morning prayer ritual. Canang saris in the baskets for offerings
Balinese care for the nature around not just by ascribing auspiciousness to it but by making efforts to conserve the same. A striking feature in Bali is the lack of air conditioning in most restaurants. Even in homestays, the power of ACs leave much to be desired. When asked, we were told it was by design to keep pollution in check atleast as much as possible!
We got lucky to be there on a day of festivites. Just like desh, there were processions heading to temples accompanied by musical instruments, local music and color array of traditional attires! There were dance performances in the temples, again not different from our own Indian folk tradition.
To the one who seeks, Bali soaks in culture, character and gratitude. It is everywhere – in the air, in the architecture, in the way people live, in the temples and in the nature around. It echoes even in the way they greet – Om Swasti-astu – May all be good, may all be auspicious (for you). The gist is not different from our own Namaste – (I) bow to the divine in you! Both implying a sense of reverence and a prayer of well being for the person.
Life feels so natural, so right and so light here. The only way to describe it would be “sahaj”, a sanskrit non-translatable. This could be my home. Not many places have kindled such a sense of familiarity and comfort in me before.
Yes, yes – I know, most of you are shaking your head and going – Ye sab to thik hai, par Bali mein karein kya? 😀 . So here you go. Read on for Must dos, must sees in Bali.
Some of you might be wondering how did Bali retain its Hindu-ness in an otherwise muslim country. Excellent question . Coming soon.
Somewhere along the way. Bali is endowed with beauty all around.
https://tinyurl.com/tfx8f7k I submit that ऋग्वेदः सूक्तं २.४१ and RV 10.130 which is addressed to DevatA Bhāvavr̥ttam भाव--वृत्तmfn. relating to creation or cosmogony (as a hymn ; also °त्तीय); m.N. of ब्रह्माL.. The topic of the Sukta is thus the creation of ukku 'steel'. This प्रउगशस्त्र is rendered pictorially on the bottom register of the Bactrian Vase (in Miho Museum). There is also a pun indicated: The top register is arkaśāla, goldsmith workshop'. The bottom register is Ta. araka a plough with bullocks, etc. complete. Malt. area plough. (DED 198) भावः-वृत्तः an epithet of Brahman. bhāvḥ भावः [भू-भावे घञ्] 1 Being, existing, existence (Apte) How to reconcile the epithet of a Brahman with the cosmogony or creation signified by making a plough?
Griffith translation RV 2.41. 1. O VAYU, come to us with all the thousand chariots that are thine, Teamborne-, to drink the Soma juice. 2 Drawn by thy team, O Vayu, come; to thee is offered this, the pure. Thou visitest the pressers' house. 3 Indra and Vayu, drawn by teams, ye Heroes, come today and drink. Of the bright juice when blent with milk. 4 This Soma hath been shed for you, Lawstrengtheners-, MitraVaruna-! Listen ye here to this my call. 5 Both Kings who never injure aught seat them in their supremest home, The thousandpillared-, firmlybased-. 6 Fed with oblation, Sovran Kings, Adityas, Lords of liberal gifts. They wait on him whose life is true. 7 With kine, Nasatyas, and with steeds, come, Asvins, Rudras, to the house That will protect its heroes well; 8 Such, wealthy Gods! as none afar nor standing nigh to us may harm, Yea, no malicious mortal foe. 9 As such, O longedfar- Asvins, lead us on to wealth of varied sort, Wealth that shall bring us room and rest. 10 Verily Indra, conquering all, driveth even mighty fear away, For firm is he and swift to act. 11 Indra be gracious unto us: sin shall not reach us afterward, And good shall be before us still. 12 From all the regions of the world let Indra send security, The foesubduer-, swift to act. 13 O all ye Gods, come hitherward: hear this mine invocation, seat Yourselves upon this sacred grass. 14 Among the Sunahotras strong for you is this sweet gladdening draught. Drink ye of this delightsome juice. 15 Ye Maruts led by Indra, Gods with Pusan for your bounteousest, Hear all of you this call of mine. 16 Best Mother, best of Rivers, best of Goddesses, Sarasvati, We are, as it were, of no repute and dear Mother, give thou us renown. 17 In thee, Sarasvati, divine, all generations have their stay. Be, glad with Sunahotras' sons: O Goddess grant us progeny. 18 Enriched with sacrifice, accept Sarasvati, these prayers of ours, Thoughts which Grtsamadas beloved of Gods bring, Holy One, to thee. 19 Ye who bless sacrifice, go forth, for verily we choose you both, And Agni who conveys our gifts. 20 This our effectual sacrifice, reaching the sky, shall Heaven and Earth Present unto the Gods today-. 21 In both your laps, ye guileless Ones, the Holy Gods shall sit them down Today- to drink the Soma here.
ऋग्वेदः सूक्तं १०.१३० R̥gveda Sukta 10.130, Hymn 3 (RV 10.130.3) refers to Prauga śastra. If Prauda is metal ploughshare meant for the ratha 'chariots', the product created in the Soma yajña is a metalwork product for Pavamāna Soma. There is a reference to pratimā in RV 10.130.3. The r̥ṣi's enquiries are: what was the limit of tye yajña? what was the means of measuring? What was the purpose of ghee and yoke? What was the boundary, what was the metred hymn when all divinities are worshipped? The expression praugam uktham 'the metred hymn' may also mean 'the measured yoke, metalwork product -- rūga (Kui), uku 'steel' (Telugu)'?
Prauga is a product; ājya is a product. Four metred hymns are offered to ājya and one to Prauga. I suggest that Prauga is rūga, uku, 'molten metal (steel)'.
Ta. uruku (uruki-) to dissolve (intr.) with heat, melt, liquefy, be fused, become tender, melt (as the heart), be kind, glow with love, be emaciated; urukku (urukki-) to melt (tr.) with heat (as metals or congealed substances), dissolve, liquefy, fuse, soften (as feelings), reduce, emaciate (as the body), destroy; n. steel, anything melted, product of liquefaction; urukkam melting of heart, tenderness, compassion, love (as to a deity, friend, or child); urukkiṉam that which facilitates the fusion of metals (as borax). Ma. urukuka to melt, dissolve, be softened; urukkuka to melt (tr.); urukkam melting, anguish; urukku what is melted, fused metal, steel. Ko. uk steel. Ka. urku, ukku id. Koḍ. ur- (uri-) to melt (intr.); urïk- (urïki-) id. (tr.); ukkï steel. Te. ukku id. Go. (Mu.) urī-, (Ko.) uṛi- to be melted, dissolved; tr. (Mu.) urih-/urh- (Voc. 262). Konḍa (BB) rūg- to melt, dissolve. Kui ūra (ūri-) to be dissolved; pl. action ūrka (ūrki-); rūga (rūgi-) to be dissolved. Kuwi (Ṭ.) rūy- to be dissolved; (S.) rūkhnai to smelt; (Isr.) uku, (S.) ukku steel.(DEDR 661)
Creation. 130 1. THE sacrifice drawn out with threads on every side, stretched by a hundred sacred ministers and one, This do these Fathers weave who hitherward are come: they sit beside the warp and cry, Weave forth, weave back. 2 The Man extends it and the Man unbinds it: even to this vault of heaven hath he outspun, it. These pegs are fastened to the seat of worship: they made the Samahymns- their weaving shuttles. 3 What were the rule, the order and the model? What were the wooden fender and the butter? What were the hymn, the chant, the recitation, when to the God all Deities paid worship? 4 Closely was Gayatri conjoined with Agni, and closely Savitar combined with Usnih. Brilliant with Ukthas, Soma joined Anustup: Brhaspatis' voice by Brhati was aided. 5 Viraj adhered to Varuna and Mitra: here Tristup day by day was Indras' portion. Jagati entered all the Gods together: so by this knowledge men were raised to Rsis. 6 So by this knowledge men were raised to Rsis, when ancient sacrifice sprang up, our Fathers. With the minds' eye I think that I behold them who first performed this sacrificial worship. 7 They who were versed in ritual and metre, in hymns and rules, were the Seven Godlike Rsis. Viewing the path of those of old, the sages have taken up the reins like chariotdrivers-.
Sayana/Wilson translation:
10.130.01 The sacrifice which is extended on every side by the threads (of created things) spread out by the worship of the gods for a hundred and one (years), these our progenitors, who have preceded us, weave it, weaving forwards, weaving backwards, they worship (Praja_pati) when (the world) is woven. [Weaving forwards: by combining the superior and inferior weaving, i.e., the intellectual and unintellectual, the enjoyer and the enjoyable, animate and inanimate existence. "Saying, 'weave forwards, weave backwards'; pitarah = the protectors, i.e., the gods]. 10.130.02 The first man spreads out this (web), the first man rolls it up, he spread it above in this heaven; these his rays have sat down on the seat (of sacrifice), they have made the prayers serve as shuttles for weaving. [sa pra_patiryajn~amatanuta: Aitareya Bra_hman.a 5.32]. 10.130.03 What was the authority (of the sacrifice), what was the limitation, what was the first cause, what was the clarified butter, what was the enclosure, what was the metre, what was pra-uga text, when the universal gods offered worship to the gods? [When the Sa_dhyas, assembled as agents of creation, offered sacrifice to Praja_pati, the question was: how should this Yajn~a be prepared?] 10.130.04 Ga_yatri_ became the associate of Agni, Savita_ became combined with Us.n.ik, Soma radiant with sacred praises (was united) with Anus.t.up, Br.hati_ gave efficacy to the words of Br.haspati. 10.130.05 Vira_t. was the glory of Mitra and Varun.a; Tris.t.ubh was Indra's portion of the midday (oblation) at this (sacrifice), Jagati_ entered into the Visvedeva_s; by this (sacrifice) r.s.is and men were created. [Verses 4 and 5 answer the question, what was the metre? Two of the other questions- those relating to the butter (a_jya) and the enclosure (paridhi)-- have been answered, in the Purus.a su_kta, 10.90; cf. Taittiri_ya Bra_hman.a 3.12.9]. 10.130.06 When this ancient sacrifice was accomplished, by it r.s.is, men, and our progenitors were created; beholding them with the eye of the mind, I glorify those who of old celebrated this sacrifice. 10.130.07 Associated with praises, accompanied by metres invested, having authority, the seven divine r.s.is, bold, and observing the path of their predecessors like charioteers, took up the reins. [Seven divine r.s.is: the r.s.is are Mari_ci and the rest; or, the seven officiating priests; their predecessors are An:girasa and the elder r.s.is; or, the gods employed in the creation].
१०.१३०.३ प्रउग
सोमयागे प्रातःसवने पंच स्तोत्राणि एवं पंच शस्त्राणि भवन्ति। स्तोत्रेषु एकं बहिष्पवमान स्तोत्रं एवं चत्वारि आज्यस्तोत्राणि भवन्ति। पंच शस्त्रेषु एकं प्रउगं शस्त्रं एवं चत्वारि आज्य शस्त्राणि भवन्ति। प्रउगशस्त्रस्य कर्ता होता ऋत्विक् भवति। चत्वारि आज्यशस्त्रेषु प्रथमस्य कर्ता होता, द्वितीयस्य मैत्रावरुणः, तृतीयस्य ब्राह्मणाच्छंसी एवं चतुर्थस्य अच्छावाकः भवति। - यज्ञतत्त्वप्रकाश (पृष्ठ ७६)
देवरथो वा एष यद्यज्ञस्तस्यैतावन्तरौ रश्मी यदाज्यप्रउगे तद्यदाज्येन पवमानमनुशंसति प्रउगेणाज्यं देवरथस्यैव तदन्तरौ रश्मी विहरत्यलोभाय तामनुकृतिम्मनुष्यरथस्यैवान्तरौ रश्मी विहरन्त्यलोभाय नास्य देवरथो लुभ्यति न मनुष्यरथो य एवं वेद- ऐ.ब्रा. २.३७
प्रउगशस्त्र- हौ०) सोमयज्ञेषु प्रकृतिभूतज्योतिष्टोमातिरात्रप्रकरणे प्रथमायां सोमसंस्थायामग्निष्टोमे तद्विकृतिषु चैकाहाहीनसत्रेषु १. प्रातःसवने प्रउगं नाम शस्त्रं होत्रा शंसनीयम् । प्रातःसवने बहिष्पवमानोत्तरं ऋतुयाजोत्तरं आज्यशस्त्रं भक्षान्तमनुष्ठाय ततः परं प्रउगं शस्यते । द्र० मी ० को० पृ० २६५२ । २. वैश्वदेवग्रहणादूर्ध्वं होत्रा शंसनीयं प्रउगनामकं शस्त्रम् (तु०-ऐ० आ० सा० १ । १ । ३) । ३ आज्यस्तोत्रान्तरं होत्रा प्रउगशस्त्रं शस्यते । द्र० अग्निष्टोमे होतुः प्रउगशस्त्र- ।
प्रउगशस्त्रतृच- (हौ०) सोमयज्ञेषु प्रकृतिभूत- ज्योति-तद्विकृतिषु चैकाहाहीनसत्रेषु विशेषवर्जं प्रातःसवने होतुः प्रउगशस्त्रस्य 'वायवा याहि दर्शतं (ऋ० १ । २ । १- ३) इति वायव्यः प्रथमस्तृचः । 'इन्द्रवायू इमे सुताः' (ऋ० १ । २ ।४६ । इति ऐन्द्रवा- यवो द्वितीयस्तृचः । 'मित्रं हुवे पूतदक्षम् (ऋ० १ । २ ।६-८ इति मैत्रावरुणस्तृतीय- स्तृचः । 'आश्विना यज्वरीरिषः' (ऋ० १ । ३ । १-३) इति आश्विनश्चतुर्थस्तृचः । 'इन्द्राऽऽयाहि चित्रभानो' (ऋ० १ । ३ ।४- ६) इति ऐन्द्रः पञ्चमस्तृचः । 'ओमासश्चर्षणीधृतः'ऋ० १ । ३।७-९) इति वैश्वदेवः षष्ठस्तृचः । 'पावका नः सरस्वती' (ऋ० १ । ३ । १०- १२) इति सारस्वतः सप्तमस्तृचः । इति तत्तद्देवत्याः सप्ततृचा भवन्ति । तृचानां पुरस्तात् यथासंख्येन शोंसावोम्'इत्याहावहिताः 'वायुरग्रेगाः'इत्याद्याः सप्त पुरोरुचः (ऋ०खि० ५ ।६ । १ -७) पठितव्याः । शंसनप्रकारः-द्र० अग्निष्टोमे होतुः प्रउगशस्त्र-, का० श्रौ० १ । ३ ।८ टि० विद्याधरः । श्रौतयज्ञप्रक्रिया - पदार्थानुक्रमकोषः। प्रणेता पण्डित पीताम्बरदत्त शास्त्री
There is प्रउग, "yoke". It also occurs in Rk-saMhita. It is generally supposed to be a prakritic pronunciation of "prayuga". - - तितउ
The topic of the Sukta RV 10.130 is Creation. What is created is prauga. This is read as pra-yuga. What is created is a metal plougshare.
Yuga (nt.) [fr. yuj; Vedic yuga (to which also yoga)= Gr. zugo/n; Lat. jugum=Goth. juk; Ohg. juh; E. yoke; Lith. jungas] 1. the yoke of a plough (usually) or a carriage DhA i.24 (yugaŋ gīvaŋ bādhati presses on the neck); PvA 127 (ratha˚); Sdhp 468 (of a carriage). Also at Sn 834 in phrase dhonena yugaŋ samāgamā which Bdhgh. (SnA 542) expls as "dhuta -- kilesena buddhena saddhiŋ yugaggāhaŋ samāpanno," i. e. having attained mastery together with the pure Buddha. Neumann, Sn trsln not exactly: "weil abgeschüttelt ist das Joch" (but dhona means "pure"). See also below ˚nangala. -- 2. (what is yoked or fits under one yoke) (Pali)
*yugahala ʻ plough with yoke ʼ. [yugá -- , halá -- ] S. juharu m. ʻ plough -- yoke ʼ (or < yugadhara -- ); L. jūlā m. ʻ upper horizontal bar of bullock yoke ʼ, khet. jhūl ʻ yoke ʼ; P. jūlā ʻ crossbar of yoke ʼ PhonPj 114 (LM 336 < yugala -- ). yugá n. ʻ yoke ʼ RV., ʻ couple ʼ Gr̥Śr. [√yuj]Pa. yuga -- n. ʻ plough -- yoke, pair ʼ, Pk. jua -- n.; Pr. yū̃, üyūˊ ʻ plough ʼ, Kal.rumb. ǰū, Bshk. yū̃, Tor. yū, Sh.gil. yū̃ m., pales. īū̃; K. yi -- püṭü f. ʻ plough -- yoke ʼ (+ paṭṭikā -- ), WPah.bhal. j̈ū̃ f.; Ku. jūwā ʻ yoke ʼ, gng. j̈uw, N. juwā, B. jū, Or. Bi. juā, H. jūā, jūh m. (whence junā ʻ to yoke together ʼ), M. j̈ũv, j̈ū̃ n.; Si. yu ʻ space of two months ʼ, viya ʻ yoke ʼ (< *yuva EGS 164). -- Gaw. žugāṭa ʻ yoke ʼ, Sv. yugaṭṓu: < yu -- + kāṣṭhá -- or < *yugmakāṣṭha -- ?
yugala -- ; *yugakāṣṭha -- , *yugacūḍa -- , *yugadhara -- , yugadhāra -- , *yugapāṭa -- , *yugabandhana -- , *yugaśala -- , *yugahala -- , yugānta -- ; kaliyuga -- , gōyugá -- , *śamyāyuga -- .yugaṁdhara -- see yugadhara -- .Addenda: yugá -- : Garh. juā, juwā ʻ yoke ʼ. †yugya -- . *yugakāṣṭha ʻ yoke timber ʼ. [yugá -- , kāṣṭhá -- ]Bi. Mth. juāṭh ʻ yoke of plough ʼ, (Patna) joṭh ʻ bullock yoke with two bars ʼ; H. jūāṭh, °āṭ m. ʻ yoke ʼ; -- Paš.lauṛ. ẓōeṭīˊ, ar. yūwaṭīˊ ʻ yoke ʼ, ishk. ẓōṭīˊ ʻ neck of yoke ʼ (IIFL iii 3, 208 prob. < yṓga -- + dimin. -- ṭī).*yugacūḍa ʻ knob on yoke ʼ. [yugá -- , cūˊḍa -- 1]Or. juuḷi, joaḷa ʻ nail hooked at both ends and thrust into blade of plough over groove into which ploughshare is fitted ʼ. yugadhara m. ʻ yoke -- pole ʼ Apte, yugaṁdhara -- m.n. ʻ pole of carriage to which yoke is fixed ʼ MBh. [yugá -- , dhara -- ]S. juharu m. ʻ plough -- yoke ʼ (or < *yugahala -- ); Or. jhurā ʻ front end of pole of cart fixed to middle of yoke, middle part of yoke where this is fixed ʼ.Addenda: yugadhara -- : S.kcch. jūarī f. ʻ yoke ʼ.yugadhāra m. ʻ the pin which fastens yoke to pole(?) ʼ MānGr̥. [yugá -- , dhāra -- 1]B. ju(y)āl, joyāl, jol ʻ yoke ʼ (ODBL 426 < yṓga -- ); r. juhāḷa, juāḷi, joāḷi ʻ yoke of cart or plough ʼ; H. jūār, juwār m. ʻ yoke ʼ, juwārā m. ʻ yoke of oxen ʼ.*yugapāṭikā ʻ ploughshare ʼ. [yugá -- , pāṭa -- ] Or. (Sambhalpur) ǰuāṛi ʻ ploughshare ʼ.(CDIAL 10491, 10482 to 10487)
Ashmolean Museum 
Pilgrim badge, possibly from the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham at Walsingham Priory. This badge is in the shape of a five-pointed star which has trefoils between each point. Projecting from the star is an arrow. Late Medieval; 15th century ID no: 85.435/1 
Simplest possible knot shape which yields a trefoil.
on the signboard signified:
Holds lotus stalk, noose, stands on makara. Makara is a composite animal composed of hieroglyphs: crocodile, elephant trunk, feline paws, fish-fins;the Meluhha rebus readings are: (dh)m
Holds lotus stalk, next to mongoose
One of the Ashta Vasus, holding two lotus stalks, Javari temple
One of the Ashta Vasus, holding lotus stalk and scroll, Chitragupta Temple
Brahma and his consort. Surasundari. Chitragupta Temple, Khajuraho. 
ayo
